Mich. R. Prof'l. Cond. 1.19
A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for legal services with a client requiring that any dispute between the lawyer and the client be subject to arbitration unless the client provides informed consent in writing to the arbitration provision, which is based on being
Mich. R. Prof'l. Cond. 1.19
Comment:
MRPC 1.19 is designed to ensure that a client entering into an arbitration agreement with a lawyer has sufficient information to make an informed decision or is independently represented by counsel in making the agreement. This paragraph applies to agreements entered into at the onset of an attorney-client relationship as well as to agreements entered into during the course of the attorney-client relationship.
In order to ensure that client consent to an arbitration provision is informed consent, at a minimum the agreement should advise the client of the practical advantages and disadvantages of arbitration. Inclusion of the following information is presumed to be sufficient to enable a client to give informed consent:
(1) By agreeing to arbitration, the client is
(a) waiving the right to a jury trial,
(b) potentially waiving the right to take discovery to the same extent as is available in a case litigated in a court,
(c) waiving or limiting the right to appeal the result of the arbitration proceeding to specific circumstances established by law, and
(d) agreeing to be financially responsible for at least a share of the arbitrator's compensation and the administrative fees associated with the arbitration;
(2) whether the agreement to arbitrate includes arbitration of legal malpractice claims against the lawyer;
(3) identification of the organization or person(s) that will administer the arbitration;
(4) if the client declines to agree to arbitration at the onset of the attorney-client relationship, there is no prohibition against the lawyer and the client agreeing to arbitrate the matter at a later date;
(5) arbitration may be conducted as a private proceeding, unlike litigation in a court;
(6) the parties can select an arbitrator who is experienced in the subject matter of the dispute;
(7) depending on the circumstances, arbitration can be more efficient, expeditious and inexpensive than litigation in a court; and
(8) the client's ability to report unethical conduct by the lawyer is not restricted.