Glickman v. Krolikowski CA4/3

Filed 11/20/20 Glickman v. Krolikowski CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

WILLIAM GLICKMAN,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G057879

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01049771)

CHARLES S. KROLIKOWSKI et al., OPINION

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Theodore R. Howard, Judge. Affirmed. Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester, Frederic W. Trester and Steven J. Renick for Defendants and Appellants. Tracy L. Anielski for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Respondent William Glickman sued appellants Charles S. Krolikowski and his law firm, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP (collectively “N&D”) for legal malpractice. N&D moved to compel arbitration, arguing the dispute was governed by an arbitration agreement contained in a prior written retainer agreement between the parties. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, and N&D appealed. N&D argues the trial court erred in concluding the prior retainer agreement did not apply to the instant action. It contends that under paragraph 13 of the prior agreement, Glickman agreed to arbitrate any disputes arising from any later representations. After independently reviewing paragraph 13, we conclude Glickman did not agree the prior written agreement would govern future representations. In addition, as discussed below, we conclude Business and Professions Code section 6148, subdivision (d)(2) (all further citations are to the Business & Professions Code, unless otherwise stated), does not establish the existence of a valid arbitration agreement because that statutory provision applies only to fee provisions in prior retainer agreements. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying N&D’s motion to compel arbitration.