Bidermann Industries Licensing, Inc. v. Avmar NV
New York Supreme Court
N.Y. L.J. 23 (Oct. 26, 1990)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Bidermann Industries Licensing, Inc. (BILI) (plaintiff) executed a license agreement with Avmar NV (Avmar), Leit Motif, Inc. (LMI), and Karl Lagerfeld (Lagerfeld) (defendant). The license agreement contained an arbitration clause providing the parties would refer any dispute arising from the licensing agreement to an arbitration in New York City under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. A dispute arose between the parties, and Avmar, LMI, and Lagerfeld referred the dispute to arbitration. During the arbitration proceedings, Avmar, LMI, and Lagerfeld sought to disqualify the law firm Coudert Brothers from representing BILI during the arbitration proceeding. Citing New York CLPR § 7503, BILI sought a stay to the arbitration to prevent the arbitral tribunal from considering the issue of disqualifying Coudert Brothers. BILI argued the issue of disqualification of its counsel was not arbitrable as the issue was outside the scope of the arbitration clause contained in the licensing agreement. BILI further argued courts retain exclusive jurisdiction over the ethical obligations of attorneys, rendering an arbitration of the issue against public policy. Avmar, LMI, and Lagerfeld countered that the arbitration clause encompassed any dispute arising out of the licensing agreement and that the disqualification was a dispute arising from the agreement. Avmar, LMI, and Lagerfeld further argued that the disqualification of counsel was a procedural issue within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.