Hiding Elephants in Mouseholes: Judicial (Mis)Application of the Federal Arbitration Act to Attorney-Client Arbitration Agreements

This article criticizes cases and commentary that assume, without argument, that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and its decidedly pro-arbitration jurisprudence apply to determine the enforceability of private attorney-client arbitration agreements, thus preempting state bar rules governing disclosures that lawyers must otherwise provide to clients when proposing private, binding arbitration in place of bar-sponsored arbitration regimes. The author argues that applying the FAA and its jurisprudence to attorney-client arbitration agreements raises significant constitutional issues regarding the states’ recognized authority to regulate the legal profession—an issue that courts and commentators have simply ignored.