Nodvin v. State Bar of Ga.

A former client of attorney Marvin P. Nodvin filed a petition with the State Bar’s Committee on the Arbitration of Fee Disputes. Nodvin responded, but exercised his right not to be bound by the result of the arbitration, and the Committee accepted jurisdiction over the fee dispute. Nodvin then brought suit for injunctive and declaratory relief and for damages, primarily challenging the constitutionality of those fee arbitration rules which provide for selection of the lawyer arbitrators and, in the event of ensuing litigation, for the client to be represented by a lawyer and that there be a presumption of fairness of the award. State Bar Rules 6-303 a, 6-502. The trial court rejected Nodvin’s constitutional claims and granted the State Bar’s motion to dismiss. Nodvin appeals from this order.

1. The State Bar rules governing arbitration of fee disputes are grounded in this Court’s inherent and exclusive authority to govern the practice of law in Georgia. Wallace v. State Bar of Ga., 268 Ga. 166, 167 1 468 SE2d 165 1997; Antinoro v. Browner, 223 Ga. App. 664, 665 1 478 SE2d 392 1996. ” ‘Matters relating to the practice of law, including the admission of practitioners, their discipline, suspension, and removal, are within the inherent and exclusive power of the Supreme Court of Georgia. Cits.’ Cit.” Scanlon v. State Bar of Ga., 264 Ga. 251, 252 1 443 SE2d 830 1994. Surely this “ authority to regulate nearly every facet of the profession, from the application and admission process to attorney discipline and disbarment, also includes the authority to regulate” in the area of fee disputes. Shimko v. Lobe, 706 NE2d 354, 359 II Ohio App. 1997. See also Antinoro v. Browner, supra at 665 1. “Though critically important, it is but a minor regulation of the practice of law compared to others whose validity is beyond dispute.” In the Matter of LiVolsi, 428 A2d 1268, 1272 II A N.J. 1981. This rationale justifies both regulation of the fee arbitration process and restriction on subsequent judicial review. See Miller v. Purvis, 921 P2d 610, 615-616 Alaska 1996.