Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1391 SEPTEMBER TERM, 2002

AUGUSTUS C. HARRIS v. CLIFFORD R. BRIDGFORD

Davis, Hollander, Kenney, JJ.

Opinion by Kenney, J.

Filed:November 5, 2003

Augustus C. Harris appeals the decision of the Circuit Court for Frederick County granting a Motion to Stay Proceedings and Enforce Arbitration Award ("Motion to Arbitrate") in favor of appellee, Clifford R. Bridgford, Esquire. That court directed the

dispute to the Maryland State Bar Association Committee on the Resolution of Fee Disputes ("Committee") for binding arbitration. Harris poses two questions on appeal, which we have re-worded as follows: I. Did the circuit court err in finding that Bridgford did not waive his right to arbitration by filing suit in District Court? II. Are Harris's counterclaims asserting fraud and breach of contract in regard to fees already paid within the scope of the arbitration agreement? For the reasons stated below, we shall hold that the circuit court did not err in finding that Bridgford did not waive his right to arbitration by filing suit in District Court and that Harris's claims of fraud and breach of contract are within the scope of the arbitration agreement. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Harris retained Bridgford to represent him in a divorce action. He had paid Bridgford $26,000 for his services prior to When he withdrew, Bridgford

Bridgford's withdrawing as counsel.

claimed outstanding legal fees of approximately $27,000. Harris filed a complaint with the Committee, to resolve the fee dispute through binding arbitration. The Committee appointed Client

Representative, Ronald J. Levasseur, Esquire, to aid Harris in the

-2process.1 Thereafter, both Harris and Bridgford signed and

executed an "Attorney's Consent to Arbitration" form with the Committee. This form provided, in pertinent part, that the parties agreed to be legally bound by the rules, regulations, and decisions or award of the Maryland State Bar Association's Committee on the Resolution of Fee Disputes. Arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Regulations of the Committee on the Resolution of Fee Disputes and the Arbitration and Awards Subtitle, 3-201, et seq., of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended. I realize by agreeing to such, the right to any further Court proceedings concerning the fee dispute, except enforcement of any possible award, is hereby waived. Upon receiving the executed consent forms, the Committee scheduled the arbitration hearing for November 23, 1999. The scheduled arbitration was cancelled for reasons unclear in the record, but was due to be rescheduled. Prior to rescheduling,

however, Harris wrote a letter to Levasseur on December 28, 1999, outlining his request to withdraw from arbitration and asking that Levasseur forward this request to the Committee. notified over the telephone of Harris's Bridgford, when strongly

withdrawal,

objected to this course of action and argued that Harris should not be permitted to by withdraw letter on from the 28, arbitration 2000, the process. Committee

Nevertheless,

February

1

Harris subsequently retained Levasseur as counsel in the instant matter.

-3dismissed Harris's complaint for arbitration. Nearly eighteen months later, on June 18, 2001, Bridgford filed a complaint in the District Court of Maryland for Frederick County, alleging breach of contract by Harris for "failing to pay for all . . . legal services and expenses through August 22, 1998." Bridgford claimed $25,000 in damages.2 Harris prayed a jury trial, and the case was removed to the Circuit Court for Frederick County. On August 25, 2001, Harris answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim for breach of contract and fraud. pertinent part, that 3. Counterdefendant Bridgford failed to adequately discharge his contractual obligations to Harris by, among other things: failing to apprise Harris of the status of and developments in his case; billing Harris for services not performed or performed duplicatively; excessively billing Harris for unnecessary or unreasonable services; failing to zealously represent Harris's best interests; and breaching the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Moreover, Harris alleged that Bridgford "fraudulently and intentionally misrepresented the nature, extent and amount of legal work he performed for Harris for the purpose of defrauding Harris by causing him to incur significantly higher legal bills than what was reasonable and proper under the circumstances." Harris claimed $52,000, plus costs and interest, in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. Harris claimed, in

2

Presumably, for jurisdictional reasons, this was $2,000 less than the outstanding fees.

-4On September 25, 2001, Bridgford filed the Motion to

Arbitrate, arguing that, under Md. Code (1974, 2002 Repl.)

Download Harris v. Bridgeford.pdf

Maryland Law