A California court has ruled that an arbitrator (not a judge) should decide on the applicability of California Labor Code Section 925 to a dispute between a law firm partner and his.
A California court has ruled that an arbitrator (not a judge) should decide on the applicability of California Labor Code Section 925 to a dispute between a law firm partner and his former law firm. Zhang v. Superior Court, 2022 WL 16832570 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).
A California court has ruled that an arbitrator not a judge should decide on the applicability of California Labor Code Section 925 to a dispute between a law firm partner and his former law firm. Zhang v. Superior Court, 2022 WL 16832570.
Dentons LLP has told a California appellate court that a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling reinforces its argument that one of its former partners who claims he was unjustly fired over a disputed $34 million contingency fee must arbitrate the matter, while the ex-partner said the ruling is irrelevant.
An ex-Dentons partner is fighting to preserve a long-shot win against his former firm in an ugly dispute over a $34 million contingency fee, urging a California appeals court to let the case play out in the Golden State and claiming Dentons exploited a loophole in California's arbitration laws to send it to New York.