Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP 

Plaintiffs and their business entities sued accounting firm and law firms for their alleged "investment strategies" to form various sham entities as tax shelters. Contract provided that accounting firm would prepare tax returns, and consult as to negotiations and transactions, for fee of $1.58 million, but was not providing investment advice or services. Contract included arbitration clause, but parties did not clearly and unmistakably agree that the arbitrator would decide the question of the arbitrability of a given claim; thus, arbitrability question is for the courts to decide. References in arbitration clause to Illinois and New York laws relate to how, not whether, arbitration is to be conducted, and thus the procedural rules of those states apply. Plaintiffs' claims for bad investment advice or bad legal advice do not fall within the scope of the firm's performance, per the contract, and are thus not within the scope of the arbitration clause. (STEIGMANN, concurring; TURNER, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part.)