Case of the Day: Wires Jolley LLP v. Shlaimoun

The case of the day is Wires Jolley LLP v. Shlaimoun (C.D. Cal. 2013). Wires Jolley was an Ontario law firm. Zia Shlaimoun and Oussha Arda Shlaimoun, who apparently resided in California, had hired Wires Jolley to represent it in Canadian proceedings. The written agreement between the firm and the Shlaimouns called for arbitration of disputes in Toronto.

Claiming the Shlaimouns owed it $326,000 in unpaid legal fees, Wires Jolley initiated an arbitration. The arbitrator decided that the firm’s services were “acceptable” but that the fee was somewhat excessive. He awarded Wires Jolley approximately $227,000.

Wires Jolley sought confirmation of the award. The Shlaimouns raised none of the grounds that, under Article V of the New York Convention, could justify a refusal to confirm the award, but they did argue for a stay while they litigated a claim for malpractice, fraud, and breach of contract against Wires Jolley in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Under Article VI, a stay is permissible “if an application for the setting aside or suspension of the award has been made to a competent authority referred to in Article V(1)(e),” that is, to a competent authority “of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made.” There is also, however, precedent permitting stays for other prudential reasons. But such stays are exceptional. Here, the Shlaimouns had had the opportunity to raise their claims in the arbitration and the arbitrator had specifically found that the lawyers’ services were acceptable. “To stay this action to allow Respondents to assert these same claims, even if it was within this Court’s authority to do so, would impermissibly thwart the purpose of the Convention, “to expedite the recognition of foreign arbitral awards with a minimum of judicial interference [ellipsis].”

4 responses to “Case of the Day: Wires Jolley LLP v. Shlaimoun”

  1. Antonin I. Pribetic

    Ontario public policy prevents the parties from contracting out of the statutory protections contained in the Solicitors Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 15,and any arbitration must be conducted as if it were an assessment: Jean Estate v. Wires Jolley LLP, 2009 ONCA 339 (On. C.A.). I wonder if this arbitration was conducted in a similar fashion.

    1. Interesting. But surely the right thing for the clients to do would be to ask an Ontario court to set the award aside?

      1. Antonin I. Pribetic

        I suppose so, if Ontario is the arbitral seat, then that’s the place to set aside the arbitral award.

        1. Right. A malpractice action in LA is doubleplusungood.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Thank you for commenting! By submitting a comment, you agree that we can retain your name, your email address, your IP address, and the text of your comment, in order to publish your name and comment on Letters Blogatory, to allow our antispam software to operate, and to ensure compliance with our rules against impersonating other commenters.