In Mahl, a client, acting pro se, went to the civil court a number of time, post-arbitration, in an attempt to file a request for a trial de novo.
Summary of this case from Law Offices of Thomas F. Liotti, LLC v. DavousiaslMarch 30, 2006.
Attorney and Client — Compensation.
In Mahl, a client, acting pro se, went to the civil court a number of time, post-arbitration, in an attempt to file a request for a trial de novo.
Summary of this case from Law Offices of Thomas F. Liotti, LLC v. DavousiaslIn Mahl v Rand (11 Misc 3d 1072[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50518[U] [Civ Ct, NY County 2006]), the court noted that the defendant, the aggrieved party after a dispute arbitration, made repeated attempts to commence a proceeding for a trial de novo in the Civil Court of the City of New York.
Summary of this case from Tray v. Thaler & Gertler, LLPIn Mahl v Rand (11 Misc 3d 1072[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50518[U] [Civ Ct, NY County 2006]), the attorney and client proceeded through the fee dispute arbitration program of the local bar association, and the arbitrator awarded the attorney $4,000.
Summary of this case from Pruzan v. LevineFull title:MAHL v. RAND
Court:Civil Court of the City of New York. NEW YORK COUNTY
Date published: Mar 30, 2006
However, this conclusion flies in the face of the clear language of section 137.8 which requires an aggrieved…
Pruzan v. Levine" In Mahl v Rand (11 Misc 3d 1072[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50518[U] [Civ Ct, NY County 2006]), the attorney and…