$9.7M Award Against Lawyer Spotlights Missing Safeguard in Arbitration
Puerto Rico attorney David Efron moved to postpone arbitration when his Florida attorney withdrew at the eleventh hour citing "irreconcilable differences."
February 13, 2020 at 03:53 PM
5 minute read
A personal injury and medical malpractice attorney hit with a $9.7 million arbitration award has secured a reversal after Florida's Third District Court of Appeal found he should have been granted a postponement when his lawyer cited "irreconcilable differences" and withdrew from the case.
The dispute began in January 2017 when UBS Financial Services Inc. of Puerto Rico moved to arbitrate against attorney David Efron.
Efron operates the Law Offices of David Efron Law, which has attorneys in Coral Gables and Puerto Rico. He is licensed to practice in Puerto Rico, New York and the District of Columbia.
While Efron was in the midst of a long-running divorce proceeding, UBS released money to him that later became subject to a judgment for his ex-wife. After years of litigation and millions in attorney fees, UBS settled a lawsuit with Efron's ex-wife, then looked to him for indemnification.
Efron asked for a postponement 11 days before arbitration was scheduled, when his attorney Lloyd Schwed of Schwed Kahle & Kress in Palm Beach Gardens withdrew. Efron asked for 60 days to retain new counsel, but the arbitration panel denied his request without explanation. Efron failed to appear, and in his absence, the panel sided with UBS.
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Pedro Echarte Jr. then denied Efron's request to vacate the award.
But the appellate court disagreed.
It's usual for an appeals court to overturn an arbitration award, as speed and finality are key. This leaves just four avenues for appeal: corruption, bias, misconduct or overstepping power. This case fell under the misconduct umbrella, as the arbitration panel refused to postpone a hearing without sufficient cause, depriving Efron of a fair hearing, the panel concluded.
|
Read more: Have Lawyers Ruined Arbitration?
Though the arbitration panel gave no explanation for denying Efron's motion, UBS argued the attorney had already been denied a postponement over a calendar mix-up. It alleged he tried to hamper proceedings by not paying legal fees to Schwed.
But the court found insufficient record evidence to support that.
Schwed said attorney-client privilege prevented him from saying why he had withdrawn, but he said he agrees with the ruling.
"Even though I had irreconcilable differences with Mr. Efron at that time, I think the panel really should have granted him a reasonable extension of time. Aand I think that was an abuse of their discretion," Schwed said. "I was very surprised that the Third DCA had the courage to do the right thing."
He described the underlying arbitration as bizarre, and said Efron told him the divorce proceeding was the most protracted in Puerto Rico's history.
"I guess bad divorces lead to strange events," Schwed said.
Efron's appellate lawyer, Leslie Rothenberg of the Ferraro Law Firm, said Efron had claimed Schwed demanded an advance of more than $100,000 to represent him at the hearing.
Rothenberg is a former chief Third DCA judge, and the case was her first oral argument before the appellate panel since transitioning back to private practice in 2019.
In her view, Efron's plight demonstrates a crucial difference between arbitration and litigation, where a court can deny an attorney's request to withdraw if it's too late.
"When it's an arbitration proceeding, the arbitrator has no authority over lawyers," Rothenberg said. "A lawyer just files a motion that he or she has withdrawn, and that's it. There's no control over that. It leaves the client completely unprotected."
Ironically, Rothenberg pointed out that granting the continuance would have saved the arbitration panel time.
"It would have been no big deal. If they didn't want to give him 60 days, they wanted to give him 30, then he would have had to comply with that. But they didn't give him any time," Rothenberg said. "And it was kind of amazing that UBS would have been arguing against a short delay like that, when they spent many years litigating with the ex-wife over whether or not they had to pay her for their own negligence."
Counsel to UBS, Alex Sabo of Bressler, Amery & Ross in Miami and Christopher Manning and Michael Fishman in Washington, D.C., did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.
Third DCA Judge Thomas Logue wrote the ruling with Judges Edwin A. Scales III and Monica Gordo.
Read the ruling:
More appeals:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMiami’s Arbitration Week Aims To Cement City’s Status as Dispute Destination
3 minute readMediating Community Association Disputes: Tips for Attorneys, and Their Clients
6 minute readFlorida Supreme Court Clarifies Qualifications for Court-Appointed Arbitrators
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250