Justice Rubin, In A Long Dissent, Concludes Otherwise.
Safarian Choi & Bolstad, LLP v. Minassian, Case No. B262526 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Apr. 7, 2016) (unpublished) involved an ex-client who lost a mandatory fee arbitration to his ex-attorneys. Among other challenges to the arbitration award, ex-client raised the argument that the arbitration panel chairman failed to reveal that 50% of his practice involved representing lawyers—a fact said to be reasonably relevant to a disqualification request. The appellate court disagreed in a 2-1 decision, reasoning that the panel chairman’s practice was lawyer versus lawyer rather than a lawyer versus client practice (with the latter maybe giving rise to a disclosure obligation by a putative arbitrator). Justice Rubin, in dissent, argued that the information should be been disclosed because it was “reasonably relevant” to the disqualification issue with respect to an ex-client involved in a fee arbitration.