{ "id": 12168115, "name": "RAY CASTILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOSE LUIS ARRIETA, MANUEL ARRIETA, THE ARRIETA LAW FIRM, P.C., and JOSE LUIS ARRIETA, P.C., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Castillo v. Arrieta", "decision_date": "2016-02-02", "docket_number": "No. S-1-SC-35772; Docket No. 34,108", "first_page": "615", "last_page": "624", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "2016-NMCA-040" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "2011-NMCA-062", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4249741 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 17" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/149/0681-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 F.3d 411", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 11454200 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "418" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/206/0411-01" ] }, { "cite": "338 P.3d 123", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2014-NMCA-116", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4241360 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 11, 14" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/7/0031-01" ] }, { "cite": "2011-NMSC-033", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4250808 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 7-8" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/150/0398-01" ] }, { "cite": "299 P.3d 388", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2013-NMSC-010", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4190651 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 34" }, { "page": "\u00b6 39" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/3/0718-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 N.M. 757", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 708786 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/106/0757-01" ] }, { "cite": "1988-NMSC-014", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 18-21" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2004-NMSC-002", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 1428086 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 9" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/135/0017-01" ] }, { "cite": "619 N.W.2d 714", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "718-19", "parenthetical": "same" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "467 S.W.3d 494", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.3d", "case_ids": [ 6854109 ], "year": 2015, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "504-05", "parenthetical": "\"[Prospective clients who sign attorney-client employment contracts containing arbitration provisions are deemed to know and understand the contracts' content and are bound by their terms on the same basis as are other contracting parties.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw3d/467/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "2003 WL 23010100", "category": "reporters:specialty_west", "reporter": "WL", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 10", "parenthetical": "mem." } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "821 A.2d 531", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "case_ids": [ 303711 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "538-39", "parenthetical": "discussing consultation with an independent attorney as applied to fee disputes" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nj-super/360/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 So. 3d 1069", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 3d", "case_ids": [ 7018331 ], "weight": 5, "year": 2012, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1077-78" }, { "page": "1072" }, { "page": "1073, 1077" }, { "page": "1078" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so3d/103/1069-01" ] }, { "cite": "591 A.2d 1286", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "case_ids": [ 7382440 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1291-92", "parenthetical": "but concluding that the text of the clause itself, which referred to \"the unavailability of court action\" sufficiently conveyed all the information necessary" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/a2d/591/1286-01" ] }, { "cite": "256 Cal. Rptr. 6", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "10" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1996 WL 734408", "category": "reporters:specialty_west", "reporter": "WL", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "*5" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2000 WL 33389634", "category": "reporters:specialty_west", "reporter": "WL", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "*6" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1997 WL 419331", "category": "reporters:specialty_west", "reporter": "WL", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "*4" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1999 WL 958027", "category": "reporters:specialty_west", "reporter": "WL", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "*2" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1989 WL 253264", "category": "reporters:specialty_west", "reporter": "WL", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "*5" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 N.M. 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5323050 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/78/0011-01" ] }, { "cite": "1967-NMSC-069", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 55-58" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 55-58" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "853 F. Supp. 73", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 7402823 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "80", "parenthetical": "omission in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/853/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "2010-NMSC-047", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4250157 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 47" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/149/0074-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 N.M. 422", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1568800 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/93/0422-01" ] }, { "cite": "1979-NMCA-106", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 30" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 40-43" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "98 N.M. 541", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1582518 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/98/0541-01" ] }, { "cite": "1982-NMSC-102", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 13" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2006-NMCA-117", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 3670872 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 23" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/140/0374-01" ] }, { "cite": "2009-NMSC-021", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4243196 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 31" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/146/0256-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 F.3d 1511", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 11367523 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1516" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/51/1511-01" ] }, { "cite": "2006-NMCA-127", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 3671309 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 7" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/140/0552-01" ] }, { "cite": "296 P.3d 478", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2013-NMSC-004", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4190787 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 46" }, { "page": "\u00b6 16" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/3/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "2002-NMCA-030", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 183090 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 55" }, { "page": "\u00b6 52" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/131/0772-01" ] }, { "cite": "2003-NMCA-138", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 77196 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 14" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/134/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "288 P.3d 888", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2012-NMCA-102", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4189079 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 14" }, { "page": "\u00b6 27" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 18, 22-23" }, { "page": "\u00b6 20" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/2/0645-01" ] }, { "cite": "2002-NMCA-101", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 260748 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 13-14" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/132/0733-01" ] }, { "cite": "2003-NMCA-148", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 77181 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 4" }, { "page": "\u00b6 4" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/134/0630-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 Temp. L. Rev. 547", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Temp. L. Rev.", "year": 2015, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "557-64" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1377, "char_count": 31789, "ocr_confidence": 0.785, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.856319230494445e-08, "percentile": 0.3060722845231517 }, "sha256": "a3e0fcd4d4aaed00136af14c164daa38b3b64e4e4f2ce2a11ca21fed414d1112", "simhash": "1:bf702dc72ba3ab2a", "word_count": 4959 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:30:56.942854+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "LINDA M. VANZI, Judge", "MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge", "J. MILES HANISEE, Judge" ], "parties": [ "RAY CASTILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOSE LUIS ARRIETA, MANUEL ARRIETA, THE ARRIETA LAW FIRM, P.C., and JOSE LUIS ARRIETA, P.C., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nVANZI, Judge.\n{1} In 2006 Plaintiff Ray Castillo signed a document with a provision requiring him to arbitrate \u201cany dispute\u201d arising between him and his attorneys, who are now defendants in this case. The present lawsuit\u2014alleging legal malpractice and related claims'\u2014can only proceed to a jury trial if, as a matter of contract, the arbitration clause does not apply, or if it is otherwise unenforceable.\n{2} An arbitration clause in a fee agreement between attorney and client implicates unique legal and ethical concerns that are presently being debated, with other jurisdictions taking varied approaches to enforceability. See generally Terese M. Schireson, Comment, The Ethical Lawyer-Client Arbitration Clause, 87 Temp. L. Rev. 547, 557-64 (2015). For the reasons discussed in this Opinion, we hold that the plain text of this unusually broad arbitration provision reasonably applies to Plaintiffs malpractice claim, but that it is unenforceable if it was signed without Plaintiffs informed consent. We reverse the district court\u2019s decision compelling arbitration and remand for proceedings to determine the circumstances surrounding negotiation of the fee agreement.\nI. BACKGROUND\n{3} On August 7, 2006, Plaintiff signed a contingency fee agreement with Jose Luis Arrieta and the Arrieta Law Firm, P.C., which Plaintiff alleges was then also the firm of Jose\u2019s brother and co-counsel, Manuel Arrieta. The representation was related to injuries Plaintiff allegedly suffered less than a month earlier in a work site accident\u2014'the severity of which is now disputed by the parties. This dispute, along with most other factual disputes raised in the briefs, is not relevant to our analysis.\n{4} The fee agreement at issue contains fourteen numbered paragraphs. The final numbered paragraph succinctly provides:\nARBITRATION CLAUSE: Should any dispute arise, Client and Attorney agree to submit their dispute to arbitration.\nPlaintiff signed the fee agreement, affirming that he \u201cread the foregoing terms and agree[d] to them withoutreservation.\u201d There is no other language in the agreement that discusses the scope or meaning of the arbitration clause or provides any explanation of arbitration generally. There is no indication in the agreement that Plaintiff was waiving his right to a jury trial should he sue his attorney for malpractice. Nor is there any suggestion that Plaintiff seek advice of independent counsel before agreeing to such a waiver.\n{5} In 2013 Plaintiff brought this lawsuit against Jose, Manuel, and their law firms (collectively, Defendants), alleging that Defendants breached their obligations in the fee agreement, breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and committed legal malpractice resulting in Plaintiffs inability to present his personal injury case. When Defendants moved to compel arbitration, Plaintiff opposed the motion on grounds that the arbitration clause was ambiguous, did not clearly apply to a legal malpractice claim, and was otherwise unconscionable and unenforceable as a matter of public policy. With respect to enforceability, Plaintiff argued, in part, that an attorney has fiduciary obligations to his client, which includes an obligation to explain the meaning and scope of an agreement to arbitrate, including the relative advantages and disadvantages of prospectively giving up the right to a jury trial for any future malpractice claim.\n{6} Plaintiff and Defendants submitted conflicting affidavits related to the circumstances surrounding negotiation of the fee agreement. According to Defendants, each paragraph was reviewed with and explained to Plaintiff before the agreement was signed. Specifically, the defense affidavit states that Plaintiff was told that any dispute arising from the representation \u201cwould be subject to arbitration through a neutral arbitrator selected by both parties.\u201d In contrast, Plaintiffs affidavit states that Defendants never discussed anything about arbitration with him and that he was never told that he would be waiving his right to a jury trial if he sued Defendants for malpractice.\n{7} Plaintiff sought leave to depose Defendants in order to investigate the factual dispute evinced by the affidavits. Without any evidentiary hearing, the district court\u2014either believing the factual dispute to be irrelevant, or else resolving the dispute on the face of the conflicting affidavits'\u2014denied Plaintiffs request to conduct discovery and granted Defendants\u2019 motion to compel arbitration.\nII. DISCUSSION\n{8} Plaintiff makes several related arguments on appeal, which we summarize as: (1) the arbitration provision, which was included in an agreement dealing primarily with attorney fees, does not clearly apply to the malpractice claim; and (2) enforcement of the provision violates public policy unless Plaintiff was sufficiently informed \u201cof the details of the arbitration process and the pros and cons of arbitration,\u201d and given the opportunity to seek advice of independent counsel. \u201cWe review de novo the grant of the motion to compel arbitration in the same manner we would review a grant of a summary judgment motion.\u201d DeArmond v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 2003-NMCA-148, \u00b6 4, 134 N.M. 630, 81 P.3d 573. As such, the question cannot be resolved as a matter of law if there remain disputed issues of material fact. See Campbell v. Millennium Ventures, LLC, 2002-NMCA-101, \u00b6\u00b6 13-14,132 N.M. 733, 55 P.3d 429.\nA. The Legal Malpractice Claim Is Within the Scope of the Arbitration Clause\n{9} As an initial matter, we are asked to determine whether the arbitration provision relied upon is even intended to apply to Plaintiffs legal malpractice claim. See Clay v. N.M. Title Loans, Inc., 2012-NMCA-102, \u00b6 14, 288 P.3d 888 (\u201c[Arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.\u201d (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). \u201cUnder contract law, the scope of an arbitration provision\u2014whether the parties intended to submit to arbitration\u2014is determined by applying the plain meaning of the contract language.\u201d Id. (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). The clause in this case is included in an agreement that deals primarily with attorney fees, and is broadly worded to apply to \u201cany dispute\u201d that may arise between the parties. Plaintiff considers this language to be ambiguous, and asks us to construe any ambiguity strictly against Defendants.\n{10} \u201cWe construe ambiguities in a contract against the drafter to protect the rights of the party who did not draft it.\u201d Heye v. Am. Golf Corp., 2003-NMCA-138, \u00b6 14, 134 N.M. 558, 80 P.3d 495. But \u201c[arbitration clauses such as the one before us are drafted with broad strokes and, as a result, require broad interpretation.\u201d Santa Fe Techs., Inc. v. Argus Networks, Inc., 2002-NMCA-030, \u00b6 55, 131 N.M. 772, 42 P.3d 1221. \u201cWhen parties voluntarily contract to arbitrate their grievances, an order to arbitrate the particular grievance should not be denied unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.\u201d Horne v. Los Alamos Nat\u2019l Sec., L.L.C., 2013-NMSC-004, \u00b6 46, 296 P.3d 478 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted); see Heimann v. Kinder-Morgan CO2 Co., L.P., 2006-NMCA-127, \u00b6 7, 140 N.M. 552, 144 P.3d 111 (\u201c[AJmbiguity in arbitration clauses should be resolved to favor arbitration.\u201d). We will certainly not construe a broad but unambiguous arbitration clause in a manner counter to its plain text. See Clay, 2012-NMCA-102, \u00b6 27.\n{11} However, our prior cases dealing with broadly worded arbitration clauses have still required some relationship between the dispute at issue and the general substance of the underlying agreement. See id. \u00b6 14 (\u201cIn order to fall within the scope of the arbitration clause, the claims at issue must bear a \u2018reasonable relationship\u2019 to the contract in which the arbitration clause is found.\u201d); Santa Fe Techs., 2002-NMCA-030, \u00b6 52. Although the arbitration provision we examined in Clay\u2014by its terms\u2014applied only to matters that arose from or were related to the underlying agreement, we were nonetheless persuaded that \u201ceven the most broadly[]worded arbitration agreements still have limits founded in general principles of contract law,\u201d and that courts should \u201crefuse to interpret any arbitration agreement as applying to outrageous torts that are unforeseeable to a reasonable consumer in the context of normal business dealings.\u201d 2012-NMCA-102, \u00b6\u00b6 18, 22-23 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\n{12} Thus, a party to even the most general arbitration agreement \u201cmay be assumed to have intended to arbitrate issues that are closely related to those governed by the agreement itself, but not those that are unrelated to the agreement, out of the context of the agreement, or outrageous and unforeseeable.\u201d Id. \u00b6 20; see Coors Brewing Co. v. Molson Breweries, 51 F.3d 1511, 1516 (10th Cir. 1995) (\u201c[I]f two small business owners execute a sales contract including a general arbitration clause, and one assaults the other, [it is] elementary that the sales contract did not require the victim to arbitrate the tort claim because the tort claim is not related to the sales contract.\u201d).\n{13} The underlying agreement at issue in this case is styled as an \u201cAttorney-Client Contingency Fee Agreement.\u201d It deals primarily with attorney fees\u2014provisions regulating minimum deposits for litigation and costs, legal fees and billing practices, attorney\u2019s charging lien, and other such matters. But it also describes the scope of representation, discusses discharge and withdrawal, and disclaims liability for various issues. Importantly, Paragraph 2 contains the attorney\u2019s obligations to the client to \u201cprovide those legal services reasonably required to represent Client, and... take reasonable steps to inform Client of progress and to respond to Client\u2019s inquiries.\u201d In short, the agreement, like any retainer agreement, broadly governs the attorney-client relationship and sets out various obligations between the parties.\n{14} Plaintiff\u2019s complaint for legal malpractice is based on Defendants\u2019 \u201cfailing to pursue the proper entities, failing to preserve evidence, failing to diligently pursue the case, failing to properly communicate with the clients and otherwise acting in an unreasonable and negligent manner.\u201d In other words, and without requiring much abstraction, the gist of the complaint is that Defendants \u201cfailed to provide those legal services required to represent\u201d Plaintiff, and failed to keep Plaintiff informed and respond to his inquiries\u2014which are the same obligations described in Paragraph 2 of the fee agreement. Therefore, because the present dispute fairly implicates the rights and obligations described in the fee agreement, particularly the duties set out in Paragraph 2, we conclude that it would ordinarily be subject to the arbitration clause included in that same agreement. See Clay, 2012-NMCA-102, \u00b6 20 (\u201cA party may be assumed to have intended to arbitrate issues that are closely related to those governed by the agreement itself[.]\u201d). Whether the arbitration provision may be enforced under the present circumstances is a separate question to which we now turn.\nB. The Arbitration Clause Is Unenforceable Absent Plaintiff\u2019s Informed Consent\n{15} \u201c[Arbitration agreements are contracts enforceable by the rules of contract law.\u201d Horne, 2013-NMSC-004, \u00b6 16; see NMSA 1978, \u00a7 44-7A-7(a) (2001) (\u201cAn agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties ... is valid, enforceable[,] and irrevocable except upon a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract.\u201d). Contract provisions that are \u201cgrossly unreasonable and against our public policy under the circumstances\u201d are not enforceable. Cordova v. World Fin. Corp. of N.M., 2009-NMSC-021, \u00b6 31, 146 N.M. 256, 208 P.3d 901. \u201cWhether a contract is against public policy is a question of law for the court to determine from all the circumstances of each case[,]\u201d considering both statutory and judicial expressions of public policy. K.R. Swerdfeger Constr., Inc. v. Bd. of Regents, Univ. of N.M., 2006-NMCA-117, \u00b6 23, 140 N.M. 374, 142 P.3d 962 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\n{16} Defendants argue that Plaintiff\u2019s failure to read and understand the document he signed is no defense to its enforcement. See Smith v. Price\u2019s Creameries, Div. of Creamland Dairies, Inc., 1982-NMSC-102, \u00b6 13, 98 N.M. 541, 650 P.2d 825 (\u201cEach party to a contract has a duty to read and familiarize himself with its contents . . . , and if the contract is plain and unequivocal in its terms, each is ordinarily bound thereby.\u201d). But the agreement at issue is not an ordinary contract, and typical arm\u2019s-length principles that are completely appropriate in ordinary transactions may be less so in dealings between attorney and client. While attorney and client have substantial latitude in defining their relationship, see Citizens Bank v. C & H Constr. & Paving Co., 1979-NMCA-106, \u00b6 30, 93 N.M. 422, 600 P.2d 1212, there are necessary limits to the terms that they can agree upon\u2014even at the outset of representation.\n{17} \u201cThe relation of attorney and client is one of the highest trust and confidence, requiring the attorney to observe the utmost good faith towards his client, and not to allow his private interests to conflict with those of his client.\u201d Guest v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2010-NMSC-047, \u00b6 47, 149 N.M. 74, 244 P.3d 342 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). Thus, some courts \u201cgive particular scrutiny to fee arrangements . . . casting the burden on attorneys who have drafted the retainer agreements to show that the contracts are fair, reasonable, and fully known and understood by their clients.\u201d Wong v. Michael Kennedy, P.C., 853 F. Supp. 73, 80 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (omission in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In New Mexico, while a contingency fee agreement will usually be enforced as written, our courts still follow the rule that the agreement must be reasonable and that it must have \u201cbeen fairly and freely made, with full knowledge by the client of its effect and of all the material circumstances relating to the reasonableness of the fee.\u201d Citizens Bank, 1979-NMCA-106, \u00b6\u00b6 40-43 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). And when an attorney engages in a business transaction with an existing client, our courts \u201cclosely scrutinize}]\u201d the agreement and require \u201ca showing that the attorney made a full and frank disclosure of all relevant information that he had and that the client had independent advice before completing the transaction.\u201d Van Orman v. Nelson, 1967-NMSC-069, \u00b6\u00b6 55-58, 78 N.M. 11, 427 P.2d 896. This level ofjudicial scrutiny\u2014foreign to ordinary transactions\u2014is only justified because the relationship between attorney and client \u201chas always been considered and treated as one of trust and confidence.\u201d Id. \u00b6 57.\n{18} Whether the special nature of the attorney-client relationship in any way limits an attorney\u2019s ability to include a provision in a fee agreement requiring a client to arbitrate any future malpractice claim is an issue of first impression in New Mexico. The question has been carefully examined by the American Bar Association (ABA) and by state bar ethics committees, with the maj ority concluding that such a clause is at least ethically permitted, provided certain requirements typically involving the client\u2019s informed consent, are met. ABA Comm\u2019n on Ethics & ProfT Responsibility, Formal Op. 02-425, at 7 (2002) (requiring the client\u2019s informed consent after full disclosure of advantages and disadvantages of agreeing to arbitrate); Ariz. Ethics Op. 94-05, at 5 (Mar. 1, 1994) (same); Tex. Ethics Op. 586, 72 Tex. B.J. 128, 129 ( ProfT Ethics Comm. 2009) (same); Va. Legal Ethics Op. 1707, at 3 (Jan. 12, 1998) (same); Cal. Ethics Op. 1989-116 (St. Bar. Comm. on Prof'l Responsibility & Conduct 1989), 1989 WL 253264, at *5 (same, but distinguishing between existing and prospective clients); Conn. Ethics Op. 99-20 (Bar Ass\u2019n Comm. on Prof'l Ethics Jun. 22, 1999), 1999 WL 958027, at *2 (\u201cWith respect to arbitration clauses[,] a lawyer will satisfy his ethical duty to [a] client by using plain and intelligible wording in the clause, by directing the client\u2019s attention to the clause, and by fairly answering any questions the client asks concerning the clause.\u201d); NYCLA Ethics Op. 723 (Cty. Lawyers\u2019 Ass\u2019n Comm. ProfT Ethics July 17, 1997), 1997 WL 419331, at *4 (stating that the attorney must \u201cfully disclose[] the consequences\u201d of the provision, and allow the client an opportunity to seek independent counsel); Okla. Adv. Op. 312 (Bar Ass\u2019n Legal Ethics Comm. Aug. 18, 2000), 2000 WL 33389634, at *6 (same); Vt. Adv. Ethics Op. 2003-7, at 1 (Comm. ProfT Responsibility 2003) (same). At least one committee has determined (over dissent) that such agreements are permitted only if the client is actually represented by independent counsel. D.C. Ethics Op. 211 (May 15, 1990), available at https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/legal-ethics/op inions/ opinion211.cfm. Only two committees have taken categorical approaches to the issue: the clauses are permitted in Maine and strictly prohibited in Ohio until an actual dispute arises. See Me. Ethics Op. 170 (Prof\u2019l Ethics Comm\u2019n Dec. 23, 1999), available at http://mebaroverseers.org/attorney_services /opinion.html?id=89504; Ohio Adv. Op. 96-9 (Bd. Of Commr\u2019s on Grievances & Discipline Dec. 6, 1996), 1996 WL 734408, at *5.\n{19} In 2002 the ABA\u2019s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility addressed the issue in detail. ABA Comm\u2019n on Ethics & Prof\u2019l Responsibility, Formal Op. 02-425. The ABA persuasively concluded that a mandatory predispute arbitration clause is not a prospective limitation on malpractice liability in violation of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct \u201cunless the retainer agreement insulates the lawyer from liability or limits the liability to which she otherwise would be exposed under common or statutory law \"Id. at3-4. However, an attorney\u2019s duties under the Rules to explain matters to a client and to avoid conflicts of interest are implicated when a retainer agreement includes a provision requiring arbitration of malpractice claims. Id. at 4-7. Since arbitration typically results in a client\u2019s waiver of significant rights, including the right to a jury trial, the right to broad discovery, and the right to an appeal on the merits, the ABA decided that an attorney should fairly explain those consequences, as well as the benefits of agreeing to arbitrate in order to comply with the Model Rules. Id. at 4-5 (citing Model Rules of Professional Conducir 1.4(b) (Am. Bar Ass \u2019n 2014), which requires an attorney to \u201cexplain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation\u201d).\n{20} Based in part on the ethical concerns expressed in the ABA and state bar opinions, some courts have held that predispute attorney-client arbitration clauses are unenforceable as a matter of substantive law, unless the meaning and scope of the clauses were sufficiently disclosed to the client. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Walzer & Gabrielson, 256 Cal. Rptr. 6, 10 (Ct. App. 1989); Haynes v. Kuder, 591 A.2d 1286, 1291-92 (D.C. 1991) (but concluding that the text of the clause itself, which referred to \u201cthe unavailability of court action\u201d sufficiently conveyed all the information necessary); Hodges v. Reasonover, 103 So. 3d 1069, 1077-78 (La. 2012); see also Kamaratos v. Palias, 821 A.2d 531, 538-39 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2003) (discussing consultation with an independent attorney as applied to fee disputes); Thornton v. Haggins, 2003 WL 23010100, at \u00b6 10 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003) (mem.) (requiring consultation with an independent attorney as a prerequisite to enforcement), but see Royston, Rayzor, Vickery, & Williams, LLP v. Lopez, 467 S.W.3d 494, 504-05 (Tex. 2015) (\u201c[Prospective clients who sign attorney-client employment contracts containing arbitration provisions are deemed to know and understand the contracts\u2019 content and are bound by their terms on the same basis as are other contracting parties.\u201d); Watts v. Polaczyk, 619 N.W.2d 714, 718-19 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (same).\n{21} We find the Louisiana Supreme Court\u2019s opinion in Hodges particularly instructive. Louisiana shares with New Mexico both a strong public policy favoring arbitration, compare McMillan v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 2004-NMSC-002, \u00b6 9, 135 N.M. 17, 84 P.3d 65, with Hodges, 103 So. 3d at 1072, and a general understanding that an attorney, consistent with the oath of his profession, owes a higher degree of fidelity to and communication with his client than transacting parties ordinarily owe one another, see Hodges, 103 So. 3d at 1073, 1077. In light of the attorney\u2019s fiduciary duties of \u201ccandor and loyalty in all dealings with a client[,]\u201d and because arbitration clauses in fee agreements affect a client\u2019s material rights to a jury trial and appeal, the Court, citing ABA Formal Opinion 02-425, ultimately concluded that arbitration clauses in attorney-client agreements are only enforceable if the attorney makes a \u201cfull and complete disclosure of the potential effects of [the] arbitration clause, including the waiver of a jury trial, the waiver of the right to appeal, the waiver of broad discovery rights, and the possible high upfront costs of arbitration.\u201d Hodges, 103 So. 3d at 1078.\n{22} The Louisiana approach is consistent with the policies expressed in our own Rules of Professional Conduct. For instance, Rule 16-104(B) NMRA, which is identical to Model Rule 1.4(b)\u2014relied upon by the ABA in Formal Opinion 02-425\u2014requires a lawyer to \u201cexplain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.\u201d Rule 16-104(B). Rule 16-107(B) NMRA governs conflict of interest situations. The commentary to the Rule states: \u201c[I]f the probity of a lawyer\u2019s own conduct in a transaction is in serious question, it may be difficult or impossible for the lawyer to give a client detached advice.\u201d Id. cmt. 10. As the ABA noted, \u201cclaims against lawyers for malpractice obviously implicate such concerns.\u201d ABA Formal Op. 02-425, at 7. Both of these general considerations are specifically evident in our rule addressing prospective limitations on malpractice liability: The Rules do not \u201cprohibit a lawyer from entering into an agreement with the client to arbitrate legal malpractice claims, provided such agreements are enforceable and the client is fully informed of the scope and effect of the agreement. \u201d Rule 16-108(H) comm. cmt. 14 NMRA (emphasis added).\n{23} We recognize that the Rules of Professional Conduct do not have the force of substantive law. See generally Garcia v. Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., 1988-NMSC-014, \u00b6\u00b6 18-21, 106 N.M. 757, 750 P.2d 118 (holding that a violation of the Rules does not, by itself, give rise to a private cause of action). However, the Rules in this instance are also an expression of an attorney\u2019s fiduciary obligations of candor and loyalty to his client\u2014an expression of public policy that can preclude enforcement of other transactions between attorney and client when those duties are violated. C.f. Van Orman, 1967-NMSC-069, \u00b6\u00b6 55-58. We conclude that if an attorney is going to require his client, within the context of their relationship of trust, to waive the right to a jury trial for a future malpractice dispute, such a waiver should be made knowingly with the client\u2019s informed consent. \u201c[F]or the purpose of obtaining informed consent, adequate communication will ordinarily include disclosure of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the situation, any explanation reasonably necessary to inform the client or other person of the material advantages and disadvantages of the proposed course of conduct and a discussion of the client\u2019s or other person\u2019s options and alternatives.\u201d Spencer v. Barber, 2013-NMSC-010, \u00b6 34, 299 P.3d 388 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). At a minimum, the attorney should inform his client that arbitration will constitute a waiver of important rights, including, the right to a jury trial, potentially the right to broad discovery, and the right to an appeal on the merits.\n{24} Here, the text of the clause itself is no help. It declares in a single sentence only that client and attorney agree to submit \u201cany dispute\u201d to arbitration. We have already held that this is technically sufficient to apply to malpractice claims. However, it is not sufficient to inform the client \u201cof the material advantages and disadvantages of the proposed course of conduct.\u201d See id. If Plaintiff truly was never warned that he \u201cwas waiving [his] right to a trial by jury\u201d if he sued his attorneys for malpractice, as he stated in his affidavit, then inclusion of such a broadly worded and unexplained material term was an overreach by his attorneys that will not be enforced in this Court.\n{25} Despite Plaintiffs affidavit claiming otherwise, the district court found that \u201cfactual circumstances surrounding the formation of the [fee agreement] indicate that. . . Plaintiff was free to accept or decline the terms\u201d and \u201cPlaintiff knowingly accepted the terms.\u201d The only apparent source of this latter conclusion is the court\u2019s finding that Plaintiff \u201ccontinued with the representation\u201d after signing the fee agreement and, prior to this malpractice dispute, \u201celected to proceed with further and subsequent representation with [Defendants] and other attorneys using the same or similar arbitration provisions[.]\u201d In that vein, Defendants argue at length that Plaintiff never disputed that he later signed four similarly worded agreements and that Plaintiff was always given an opportunity to ask questions and given a copy of the agreement for his files.\n{26} That Plaintiff continued with the representation proves nothing. That he later signed similar agreements under similar circumstances demonstrates only that Defendants routinely included the same clause in their agreements with Plaintiff, potentially without ever explaining the meaning and scope of that clause. There are competing affidavits from the parties. One says that Defendants explained each provision of the fee agreement, and that Plaintiff indicated he understood the meaning of the arbitration clause. The other says that Defendants never \u201cdiscuss [ed] with [Plaintiff] anything about arbitrationf.]\u201d With contradictory affidavits and without any evidentiary hearing, the district court could not have resolved the only relevant factual dispute: Before seeking Plaintiffs signature on this agreement, did Defendants, consistent with their fiduciary obligations, sufficiently disclose the meaning and scope of the arbitration provision? When Plaintiff sought to conduct depositions to test the affidavits, his request for discovery was denied.\n{27} On this record we cannot determine whether the motion to compel arbitration was properly granted. We will treat the issue as analogous to the grant of a summary judgment motion. DeArmond, 2003-NMCA-148, \u00b6 4. Since disputed factual circumstances surrounding the adequacy of the disclosures made to Plaintiff are at the \u201cheart of this case,\u201d we conclude that remand is appropriate. See Spencer, 2013-NMSC-010, \u00b6 39.\nC. Defendants\u2019 Arguments\n{28} We briefly address Defendants\u2019 two remaining arguments. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff \u201cis not free to pick and choose which portions of the contract he wishes to enforce, and absent any applicable affirmative defense, remains bound by the contract as a whole.\u201d Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs claim of a breach of fiduciary duty is an effort to place the merits of the case before the appellate courts.\n{29} The first argument is not persuasive. Plaintiff is challenging the arbitration clause as an unexplained and unenforceable material term within an otherwise enforceable contract. He is doing so while simultaneously alleging, in part, that Defendants breached that contract. This is no different than the challenges to arbitration asserted in many of our leading cases. See, e.g., Rivera v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 2011-NMSC-033, \u00b6\u00b6 7-8, 150 N.M. 398, 259 P.3d 803 (alleging breach of contract while disputing the enforceability of the arbitration clause in that contract). In the only authority cited by Defendants, we applied the rule that a nonsignatory \u201cis estopped from refusing to comply with an arbitration clause when it receives a direct benefit from a contract containing\u201d the clause. Damon v. StrucSure Home Warranty, LLC, 2014-NMCA-116, \u00b6\u00b6 11, 14, 338 P.3d 123 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). \u201cIn the arbitration context, [this] doctrine recognizes that a party may be estopped from asserting that the lack of his signature on a written contract precludes enforcement of the . . . clause when he has consistently maintained that other provisions of the same contract should be enforced to benefit him.\u201d Int'l Paper Co. v. Schwabedissen Maschinen & Anlagen GMBH, 206 F.3d 411, 418 (4th Cir. 2000). Of course, Plaintiff makes no allegation that the clause should not be enforced against him on the ground that he is a non-signatory to the fee agreement, making the equitable principle applied in Damon wholly inapposite.\n{30} With respect to Defendants\u2019 second argument, we clarify that we are not deciding any aspect of Plaintiffs substantive malpractice claim. We are only defining the parameters by which a claim of malpractice in the attorney-client relationship is arbitrable. The underlying malpractice claim is to be resolved in arbitration or in the district court, depending on the district court\u2019s resolution of the relevant factual dispute. See Felts v. CLK Mgmt., Inc., 2011-NMCA-062, \u00b6 17, 149 N.M. 681, 254 P.3d 124 (\u201cThe general rule is that the arbitrability of a particular dispute is a threshold issue to be decided by the district court unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties decided otherwise under the terms of their arbitration agreement.\u201d).\nIII. CONCLUSION\n{31} We remand for the district court to determine whether Defendants sufficiently disclosed the meaning and scope of the arbitration agreement to Plaintiff. On remand, the court should hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue. If Defendants did not inform Plaintiff that the agreement constituted a waiver of important rights, including the right to a jury trial, potentially the right to broad discovery, and the right to an appeal on the merits, then Defendants\u2019 motion to compel arbitration should be denied.\n{32} IT IS SO ORDERED.\nLINDA M. VANZI, Judge\nWE CONCUR:\nMICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge\nJ. MILES HANISEE, Judge\nOn appeal, there is no apparent dispute that the parties were in an attorney-client relationship when the fee agreement was signed.", "type": "majority", "author": "VANZI, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Law Offices of Damon B. Ely Damon B. Ely Albuquerque, NM Chapa Law Group, P.C. Miguel J. Chapa San Antonio, Tx for Appellant", "Miller Stratvert P.A. Cody R. Rogers Las Cruces, NM for Appellees Manuel Arrieta and the Arrieta Law Firm, P.C. Jose Luis Arrieta Las Cruces, NM Pro se Appellee" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Certiorari Denied, March 23, 2016,\nNo. S-1-SC-35772\nIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO\nOpinion Number: 2016-NMCA-040\nFiling Date: February 2, 2016\nDocket No. 34,108\nRAY CASTILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOSE LUIS ARRIETA, MANUEL ARRIETA, THE ARRIETA LAW FIRM, P.C., and JOSE LUIS ARRIETA, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.\nLaw Offices of Damon B. Ely Damon B. Ely Albuquerque, NM Chapa Law Group, P.C. Miguel J. Chapa San Antonio, Tx for Appellant\nMiller Stratvert P.A. Cody R. Rogers Las Cruces, NM for Appellees Manuel Arrieta and the Arrieta Law Firm, P.C. Jose Luis Arrieta Las Cruces, NM Pro se Appellee" }, "file_name": "0615-01", "first_page_order": 631, "last_page_order": 640 }