Brandlin & Assocs v. Silverman
Respondent Brandlin & Associates Accountancy Corporation (Brandlin) initiated arbitration against appellants Robert M. Silverman, a professional corporation, and Robert M. Silverman (collectively Silverman) to recover unpaid expert witness fees. The arbitrator awarded Brandlin all the unpaid expert witness fees that it billed ($278,975.54) even though Silverman argued that Brandlin should be limited to the reasonable value of its services ($80,000) under a quantum meruittheory. Despite Silvermans petition to vacate the arbitration award, it was confirmed by the trial court. Silverman appeals, contending that the arbitrator was guilty of the following litany of errors: (1) he failed to decide the pivotal issue at arbitration, which was the reasonable value of Brandlins fees; (2) he refused to reopen the arbitration hearing to consider a declaration from a new expert who said he would have only charged $50,000 to $75,000; and (3) he failed to honor the parties contract to decide the reasonable value of its expert witness fees at the end of the engagement. Last, Silverman argues that Brandlin acted unethically by accepting an engagement it was not qualified for and that, as a result, the parties engagement contract violates public policy. In his view, the engagement contract cannot support an arbitration award. The judgment is affirmed.
Comments on Brandlin & Assocs v. Silverman