## Facts

- Hector Gonzalez and his wife retained attorneys Thomas Henry and Michael Hearn to pursue a medical-malpractice claim.
- Gonzalez signed a written attorney–client contract containing an arbitration clause requiring arbitration of “all disputes related to the services rendered by the attorneys.”
- About two weeks before the medical-malpractice limitations period expired, Henry and Hearn terminated the attorney–client contract.
- Gonzalez allegedly could not timely and properly file the medical-malpractice suit because of the late termination.
- Gonzalez and his wife sued Henry and Hearn for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices–Consumer Protection Act (DTPA).
- The plaintiffs also sought a declaratory judgment that the arbitration clause was unenforceable as against public policy and due to fraudulent inducement.
- Henry and Hearn moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA); the trial court denied arbitration and granted summary judgment declaring the arbitration agreement unenforceable.

## Issues

1. Whether the attorney–client arbitration clause was enforceable under the FAA despite challenges based on public policy and fraudulent inducement.
2. Whether the lawyers’ termination of the representation contract also terminated the arbitration agreement contained in that contract.
3. Whether the plaintiffs’ malpractice, fiduciary-duty, and DTPA claims fell within the scope of a broadly worded “related to services” arbitration clause.

## Decision

- The court of appeals held the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable under the FAA.
- It ruled the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to compel arbitration and by declaring the arbitration clause unenforceable on summary judgment.
- It held termination of the representation agreement did not terminate the arbitration clause.
- It reversed the trial court’s orders and directed that the dispute be submitted to arbitration.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FAA, arbitration agreements must be enforced absent a valid contract defense directed specifically at the arbitration clause.
- An arbitration clause is separable from the rest of the contract and generally survives termination or alleged breach of the underlying agreement.
- A clause covering “all disputes related to” the attorneys’ services broadly reaches malpractice, fiduciary-duty, and statutory claims arising from the representation, including disputes tied to the circumstances of termination.
- Fraudulent inducement allegations aimed at the contract as a whole are for the arbitrator; only fraud specifically directed at the arbitration clause may be decided as a threshold matter by the court.
- Texas public policy does not categorically bar arbitration provisions in attorney–client contracts.

## Conclusion

The court required arbitration because the FAA governed and the fee agreement’s broad arbitration clause covered the clients’ professional-liability and related statutory claims, and the clause remained enforceable despite termination of the representation agreement and generalized challenges based on public policy and fraud.


Henry v. Gonzalez, 18 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000)