Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 15 NOVEMBER 2018

Provisions Limiting Relief And Requiring Strict Confidentiality Doom Arbitration Agreement

Constance Ramos, a former partner of the Winston & Strawn law firm, sued Winston under California statutes addressing discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and unfair pay.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Court of Appeal has invalidated an arbitration agreement between a law firm and its "partner" because the agreement restricted the scope of arbitral relief available and made pre-arbitration proceedings "strictly confidential."

The Facts

Constance Ramos, a former partner of the Winston & Strawn law firm, sued Winston under California statutes addressing discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and unfair pay. Winston moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties' partnership agreement, which required any arbitration of any dispute "arising under or related to" the partnership or the partnership agreement. The agreement also required the panel of arbitrators to be selected only from partners of law firms of more than 500 attorneys, required the parties to share the costs associated with arbitration, designated an exclusive venue of Chicago, and provided that each party would bear its own attorneys' fees. The agreement further

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from