PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

Trial lawyers and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion: arbitration for me, but not for thee



Nicholas & Butler is the California law firm that launched the suit against AT&T Mobility seeking to abrogate their arbitration agreement as "unconscionable." Their successful attack on freedom of contract is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

But, according to a former client of theirs, Nicholas & Butler, like other plaintiffs' lawyers, recognize the value of mandatory arbitration provisions in reducing their own expenses; thus, they require their clients to agree to mandatory arbitration of disputes pursuant to a form contract.

Just further evidence that the anti-arbitration movement in Congress and the courts is purely about protecting trial-lawyer income, and has nothing to do with consumers. We'll believe that the trial lawyers really think arbitration hurts consumers when they start passing legislation banning mandatory arbitration clauses in attorney-client contracts.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.