Olson v. Moore

Supreme Court of Alaska · Contracts

ContractsArbitrationAttorney disqualificationAttorney's feesDue processarbitration award confirmationvacaturgross error

Facts

Donald Olson and Aimee Moore had prior business and personal relationships and signed a 2005 settlement agreement ending their business relationship. The agreement required Olson and his businesses to transfer specified cash, property, and hangar-related proceeds to Moore, allowed arbitration of disputes, and provided for reasonable actual attorney's fees. Moore later initiated arbitration claiming breach of the settlement agreement and moved shortly before the hearing to continue the arbitration and to disqualify attorney Robert Gunther based on alleged prior representation of her in hangar-related matters. The arbitrator denied both motions as untimely and unsupported, ruled for Olson and the businesses on the merits, and awarded them fees; the superior court then confirmed the award.

Issue

Did the superior court err by denying disqualification of Gunther, confirming the arbitration award despite the arbitrator's denial of Moore's disqualification and continuance motions, failing to hold an evidentiary hearing sua sponte, and awarding full reasonable attorney's fees?

Rule

A court reviewing an arbitration award gives great deference to the arbitrator, and arbitration management decisions such as denial of a continuance are vacated only for gross error causing substantial prejudice. Attorney disqualification under former-client conflict principles requires that the movant be the lawyer's former client and that the prior and current matters be substantially related, meaning either the same transaction or legal dispute, or a substantial risk that confidential factual information from the prior matter would materially advance the later client's position. When no evidentiary hearing is requested, failure to hold one sua sponte is reviewed only for plain error. Where parties agree by contract to prevailing-party reasonable actual attorney's fees in enforcement or related litigation, that agreement governs the fee award.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Patel and Orion Ridge Builders signed a Seattle settlement agreement requiring arbitration of later disputes. Nine months into the arbitration, and three days before the hearing, Nina moved to postpone so she could obtain an accounting report that her own demand had identified from the start as central to proving damages; the arbitrator denied the motion as untimely and proceeded to hearing.

If Nina asks a court to vacate the award based on the denied postponement, which is the best answer?

Explanation. Arbitration management decisions such as denials of continuances receive highly deferential review. Vacatur is proper only if the challenger shows gross error in finding insufficient cause for postponement, along with substantial prejudice. A late request for evidence the movant knew was important from the outset ordinarily will not satisfy that standard. (Derived from Olson v. Moore (n.d.).)