Read this before signing an arbitration agreement

Arbitration agreements have become a popular alternative to litigation, but don’t sign on for binding arbitration without knowing the full implications. 
Arbitration is a manner of resolving disputes before an arbitrator, not an elected judge. Substantial limits are placed on the parties. Perhaps most significant, agreeing to an arbitration waives a right to trial by jury.
A recent court case arising out of Corpus Christi and involving common-law marriage and an $11 million lottery ticket proved the point. 
On Sept. 11, the Supreme Court of Texas refused to reconsider its opinion in the case of Royston, Razor, Vickery & Williams v. Lopez. In this case, Frank Lopez sued the law firm that represented him in his dispute against his alleged common-law wife who won $11 million in the lottery. He claimed he was poorly represented by the firm.
Lopez sued the law firm for malpractice. He sought a jury trial, but the law firm asked the trial court to send the case to arbitration. It argued that Lopez agreed to arbitrate any malpractice claims against the law firm in their contract with him. 
Lopez challenged the clause on “substantive unconscionability,” which focuses on the fairness of the clause itself.
Lopez argued the arbitration clause was one-sided in favor of the law firm because it required arbitration of his malpractice claims, while the law firm did not have to arbitrate any claim for fees.
The trial court agreed and refused to enforce the arbitration clause on the grounds it was so one-sided as to be grossly unfair to the client.
The law firm appealed to the court of appeals, which affirmed the trial court. The law firm then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas, where it found a receptive ear.
The Supreme Court rejected Lopez’s argument that the arbitration clause was unconscionable. It reasoned that parties can agree on what kinds of claims can be arbitrated and that excluding certain claims from the arbitration clause is not objectionable on its face. 
“[P]roviding that one or more specified disputes are excepted from an arbitration agreement simply does not make the agreement so one-sided as to be unconscionable,” wrote Justice Johnson in the court’s opinion.
Lopez also argued that the court should impose upon lawyers the duty to explain to prospective clients the full effect of arbitration agreements; however, the Supreme Court declined to place such a duty on lawyers who are being hired.
In short, this case gives greater leeway to lawyers to include one-sided arbitration clauses in their fee agreements without having to explain them to prospective clients.  
Agreeing to arbitrate a dispute gives up important and valuable civil and constitutional rights. It’s important to pay attention before you sign any agreement with a lawyer or any other entity that seeks to replace litigation with binding arbitration.
You cannot be forced to agree to arbitration; however, once you sign an agreement to arbitrate, it is very likely it will be enforced and you will be stuck with only arbitration as an option to settle any disagreement.  
Andrew Greenwell is a lawyer with a civil trial and appellate practice with a focus on commercial litigation. He was listed as a Super Lawyer in 2011-12 and 2014-15 and a Best Lawyer since 2005.