Nationwide Personal Injury Firm Relies on Arbitration in Malpractice Suits
Orlando, FL – August 21, 2025 – Morgan & Morgan, self-proclaimed as America’s largest personal injury law firm, is facing scrutiny for its use of arbitration provisions in client agreements to address legal malpractice claims. According to a report published on August 20, 2025, by Law.com, the firm is defending against five pending malpractice lawsuits filed by Mark Tate of Tate Law Group and co-counsel Brent Savage of Savage Turner Pinckney Savage & Sprouse, with additional claims in development. These lawsuits allege issues such as low-ball settlements and untimely filings, spotlighting the firm’s reliance on arbitration clauses to resolve disputes outside the courtroom.
Trending Topic: Arbitration Clauses Shape Legal Strategies in Personal Injury Disputes
The arbitration provisions, embedded in Morgan & Morgan’s attorney fee agreements, require clients to settle disputes through arbitration rather than traditional litigation. This approach has sparked debate, with critics arguing that such clauses, often buried in fine print, limit clients’ ability to pursue claims in court, while supporters highlight arbitration’s efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The firm’s strategy has drawn attention as plaintiffs, including those represented by Tate and Savage, challenge the fairness of these agreements in high-stakes malpractice cases.
Arbitration as a Strategic Tool
Morgan & Morgan’s use of arbitration aligns with a broader trend among businesses, including law firms, to incorporate mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts. These provisions, as noted in a 2017 Malman Law article, are increasingly common in industries ranging from healthcare to personal injury, often requiring disputes to be resolved by a neutral arbitrator rather than a jury. Arbitration is touted for its speed, lower costs, and privacy compared to courtroom trials, but it also limits appeal options and may restrict discovery, potentially disadvantaging plaintiffs.
In the malpractice suits against Morgan & Morgan, the arbitration clauses are central to the firm’s defense strategy. The Law.com report highlights complaints about the firm’s handling of cases, including allegations of inadequate settlements and missed filing deadlines. However, the arbitration provisions may compel these disputes to be resolved outside public courtrooms, potentially shielding the firm from broader scrutiny. Tate and Savage’s legal team is reportedly examining whether these clauses were clearly disclosed to clients and if they meet ethical standards, citing cases like Mt. Holyoke Homes, L.P. (2013), where California courts upheld arbitration provisions in legal malpractice disputes unless deemed unconscionable.
Balancing Efficiency and Fairness
The use of arbitration in legal malpractice cases raises complex questions about client rights and firm accountability. A 2015 Texas Lawyers’ Insurance Exchange article notes that arbitration clauses are generally upheld when dealing with sophisticated clients, but courts may scrutinize them if they lack clarity or fail to explicitly include malpractice claims. Morgan & Morgan’s agreements reportedly include such provisions, though details remain undisclosed. The firm’s size—boasting over 1,000 lawyers and $25 billion recovered for clients—makes its arbitration strategy particularly impactful, as it handles thousands of cases nationwide.
Posts on X reflect public sentiment about arbitration clauses, with users like @TheVinoMom on August 17, 2025, criticizing their pervasive use in everyday contracts, arguing they erode consumer rights. This sentiment underscores the broader debate surrounding Morgan & Morgan’s approach, as clients may unknowingly waive their right to a jury trial when signing fee agreements.
A Growing Legal Battle
As the malpractice lawsuits progress, the role of arbitration provisions will likely remain a focal point. Tate and Savage’s claims, filed in jurisdictions including Georgia and Florida, aim to hold Morgan & Morgan accountable for alleged negligence. The firm, headquartered in Orlando, has not publicly commented on the lawsuits but maintains a strong reputation, as evidenced by positive client reviews praising its professionalism and results. However, the outcome of these cases could set precedents for how arbitration clauses are enforced in legal malpractice disputes, particularly for large firms operating nationwide.
With arbitration shaping the resolution of these high-profile suits, Morgan & Morgan’s strategy highlights the evolving landscape of personal injury law, where efficiency and client protections must be carefully balanced. As the legal community watches closely, the cases underscore the importance of transparency in client agreements and the broader implications of arbitration in the justice system.
Sources: Law.com, MalmanLaw.com, TLIE.org, ForThePeople.com, X posts