Melanie Durden appeals the dismissal of her challenge to an arbitrator’s award in favor of attorney Eldridge Suggs IV, in a dispute over the fee he charged for defending her son in a criminal action. She contends the superior court’s dismissal was clearly erroneous and that the court erred by dismissing her complaint without sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, by dismissing the complaint without allowing her sufficient time to conduct discovery, and by affirming an arbitrator’s award that was not supported by evidence. We affirm. The record shows that the Legal Service Retainer Agreement Durden signed contained the following provision: ARBITRATION. Should any fee dispute arise between us, we mutually agree that such dispute will be subject to binding arbitration pursuant to any Georgia State Bar Association arbitration program. The prevailing party in any arbitration or court proceedings relating to this agreement shall be awarded its reasonable attorneys fees. In addition to the foregoing award of Attorneys fees to the prevailing party, in the event legal action is required to enforce this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fees to collect or enforce the judgment. Emphasis supplied. In accordance with this provision, Durden submitted to arbitration her claim that Suggs was not entitled to retain the fee she paid him, and the State Bar Arbitrators issued an award as follows:
The Arbitrators find as follows: 1. The petitioner paid $6,400 to Respondent. 2. Parties agree $1700 was earned by attorney. OCGA § 15-19-11 is only applied to the $1700 fee earned. 3. Petitioner claims $4700 in dispute with no retainer agreement between the parties. 4. Fair market value of service in both Court cases of all representation at a minimum of $175 per hour at a minimum of 30 hours is in excess of the $4700 in dispute between the parties. The parties agree that a minimum of 30 hours of time has been spent by respondent in both cases. 5. No award to Petitioner for $4700 in dispute; however, it must be noted that the dispute was brought about by lack of communication and presentment of file documents and Statement of Service to Petitioner by Respondent. Had Respondent timely communicated with his client this Arbitration would not have been necessary. Not satisfied with this award, Durden filed “Plaintiffs’ Objection to an Arbitration Award or, Alternatively, Motion to Vacate a Void Arbitration Award or, Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial.” The complaint recited the history of the dispute, asserted why the award was wrong factually, and alleged that the award was the result of Suggs’s “fraudulent acts during the bar proceeding fraud by concealment, silence and allowing the bar to act under false illusions.” She further contended that her evidence was ignored. Durden later amended her complaint to refine and restate her allegations. The Amended Complaint stated
