ROYSTON, RAYZOR, VICKERY, & WILLIAMS, LLP, PETITIONER, v. FRANCISCO "FRANK" LOPEZ, RESPONDENT -consolidated with- IN RE ROYSTON, RAYZOR, VICKERY, & WILLIAMS, LLP, RELATOR, 467 S.W.3d 494

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-The client did not prove that the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 171.001 because the provision equally bound both parties to arbitrate claims within its scope and ensured that the same rules would apply to both parties; the provision did not unduly burden the client's substantive rights merely because it required some, but not all, claims between the parties to be arbitrated; [2]-The arbitration provision was not unenforceable on the basis that it violated public policy; [3]-The arbitration provision was not illusory because it did not allow either party to unilaterally escape or modify the obligation to arbitrate covered claims; the mutually binding promise to arbitrate all disputes except the law firm's claims for fees and expenses provided sufficient consideration for the arbitration provision.