In an Attorney-Client Fee Agreement ("Agreement"), there's an Non-Binding Arbitration clause and a Mediation clause. But when I, the "runner...

Question

In an Attorney-Client Fee Agreement ("Agreement"), there's an Non-Binding Arbitration clause and a Mediation clause. But when I, the "runner", gave that Agreement to the person ("Plaintiff") to sign at his home, that Plaintiff was sick and temporarily mentally impaired (due prescribed medication use). I just verbally told the Plaintiff that the agreement was for him to get legal representation from an attorney.

Months later, the attorney refused to prepare any oppositions, refused to appear in court & unexpectedly left the case, and now the Plaintiff plans on suing the Attorney for Legal Malpractice.

In a letter sent to the Plaintiff by the attorney, the attorney states that there's the Arbitration clause in the Agreement and that the Plaintiff cannot sue, because Plaintiff waived his right to trial, based on signing the agreement containing arbitration clause.

Plaintiff feels that he has grounds to sue, because he was mentally impaired when he signed the Agreement, and that he was not addressed about the arbitration clause in a separate document, because the arbitration clause was buried in the 9-page Agreement.

Does Plaintiff have a chance of having the court rule in his favor, when opposing a defendants' demurrer/MTS based on the Arbitration clause if they move for it.

Can Plaintiff succeed in a Motion to Strike arbitration clause from Agreement, due to him being on medical/prescription medicine intoxication, when he signed Agreement?

Answer

The preliminary facts are missing. Is the original case for which the attorney was retained ongoing, or has it been dismissed without the possibility of reviving it? There are laws that might permit the plaintiff to reopen a case even if it were dismissed if the plaintiff moves quickly to do so. Thus, if the original case is salvageable, then the only cause of action against the attorney might be for breach of contract and refund of fees and, perhaps, costs that plaintiff paid to the attorney.

I assume that by "non-binding arbitration," arbitration is required after mediation does not succeed in resolving the matter. However, even with arbitration, since it would be non-binding, the parties can then opt to continue with the court case. I would suspect that the court will put the court case on hold and let the arbitrator decide whether the issues of arbitrability and temporary incompetence will have an effect on arbitration. Courts' views on the issue seem to be that they already have enough litigation to handle and, at least initially, since the parties seemed to agree on arbitration, let the arbitrator decide these important matters. However, since I haven't seen the agreement or the pleadings, these observations are based on my own observations in other cases.