In Zavodnick, Perlmutter & Boccia L.L.C., v. Zavodnick, No. A-1242-11T1 (App. Div. August 2, 2012), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, upheld an arbitrator’s decision to allow a law firm to buyout a disabled member. Id. at 8. In so doing, the Court refused to limit the scope of the arbitrator’s authority to determine issues relating to the disability.
In that case, the members of the law firm, Zavodnick, Perlmutter & Boccia L.L.C (“law firm”), had signed an operating agreement that provided of resolution of any disputes concerning the withdrawal of a disabled member. That resolution was to be handled by the parties themselves, if possible. If not, the exclusive remedy would be arbitration under the rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). An AAA arbitration was instituted in regard to the members’ decision to require one of the attorneys, Allen Zavodnick, Esq. withdraw due to his disability.
Zavodnick challenged the arbitrator’s ruling upholding the decision to have him removed. In that
regard, Zavodnick filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Hudson County. The Court upheld the arbitrator’s decision. Zavodnick appealed to the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division also upheld the decision. In its opinion, it stated in part “[b]ecause the request for arbitration . . . clearly encompassed the issue of whether defendant’s disability or his
cessation of professional service constituted a withdrawal event, and because the operating agreements plain terms required arbitration of that issue, we find defendant’s arguments to be of insufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.” Id. at 8.
This case highlights the importance of paying particular attention to the disability provision of an operating agreement before entering into one. Very few of us ever expect to become disabled; however, it is best to account for the unlikely event that such a provision might need to be invoked.
© 2012 Nissenbaum Law Group, LLC