You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Law Office of Paul C. Miniclier PLC v. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n

Citations: 171 So. 3d 1013; 2014 La.App. 4 Cir. 1162; 2015 La. App. LEXIS 1051; 2015 WL 3407556Docket: No. 2014-CA-1162

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 27, 2015; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves a fee dispute between the Minielier Law Office, two former associates, and their former client, following the associates' resignation and the client's termination of her relationship with the firm. After the client settled her lawsuit with the former associates, the Minielier Law Office intervened to claim fees. The matter was appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which remanded it for arbitration. The district court ordered arbitration, which the LSBA repeatedly dismissed and reinstated before dismissing it definitively. The Minielier Law Office sued the LSBA in Civil District Court. The trial court ruled it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as the arbitration was ordered by a federal court. The Minielier Law Office appealed, seeking to amend the appeal record to correct the judgment date. The appellate court granted the motion to amend and affirmed the trial court's ruling on jurisdiction. The case underscores the interplay between state and federal jurisdiction in arbitration matters, particularly under the Federal Arbitration Act, highlighting the trial court's limited role during arbitration proceedings.

Legal Issues Addressed

Amendment of Appeal Records

Application: The appellant seeks to amend the record to correct the judgment date to July 28, 2014, the date of the ruling made in open court.

Reasoning: The appellant seeks to amend the record to correct the judgment date to July 28, 2014, the date of the ruling made in open court.

Appellate Review of Jurisdictional Rulings

Application: Jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo, while factual findings are reviewed for manifest error.

Reasoning: Jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo, while factual findings are reviewed for manifest error.

Federal Arbitration Act and State Court Proceedings

Application: The Minielier Law Office initially sought arbitration only against its former client, aligned with the Federal Arbitration Act rules.

Reasoning: The Minielier Law Office initially sought arbitration only against its former client, aligned with the Federal Arbitration Act rules.

Jurisdiction in Arbitration Proceedings

Application: The trial court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction since the arbitration stemmed from the federal intervention and the federal court had ordered the arbitration.

Reasoning: The trial court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction since the arbitration stemmed from the federal intervention and the federal court had ordered the arbitration.

Role of Trial Court During Arbitration

Application: During arbitration, the trial court retains jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators and compel discovery.

Reasoning: During arbitration, the trial court retains jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators and compel discovery.