A key reason for using arbitration is to avoid the costs, delays and complications of litigating a dispute in court. But what happens when the dispute is about arbitration itself? A recent appellate court ruling says you can’t be forced to arbitrate about whether a dispute is subject to arbitration.

If you are the beneficiary of an estate and want a bigger piece of the pie, it would be nice to be able to rewrite the document in your favor, saying that’s what the deceased really wanted.  Not surprisingly, a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal in Los Angeles, Urick v. Urick, affirms that you can’t do that.

Go to almost any major website today, from and to job boards and dating sites, and you will likely see user reviews on everything from the quality of a faucet to a potential mate’s sex appeal. But when does a highly charged opinion cross the line into libel and defamation?

If the attorney who represented you in a lawsuit later went to work for the opposing side, you’d probably be pretty upset. That’s why legal ethics require that a client must approve any potential conflicts of interest. But sometimes it’s not clear who the client is.

If you are a shareholder in a corporation, creditors usually cannot “pierce the corporate veil” to collect money from the company that’s owed by you. The same is generally true for owners of LLCs, or Limited Liability Companies. But there are limits to the protection a court will allow.

 Arbitration is often viewed an attractive alternative to litigation because it is designed to be quicker, less costly, and final. Even when an arbitrator’s decision was patently unfair or the arbitrator clearly didn’t follow the law, many cases have held that the parties are stuck with the decision.