( Schatz, at p. 565; Aguilar, at p. 985, Bus. Prof. Code, § 6204, subd. (a).) A contractual right to binding arbitration survives if arbitration under the MFAA is waived or fails to resolve the dispute. ( Schatz, at pp. 562, 574-575; Ervin, Cohen Jessup, LLP v. Kassel (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 821, 828-829 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 685].) "'The MFAA was first proposed by the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California in 1976 when, finding that disputes concerning legal fees were the most serious problem between members of the bar and the public, the board sought to create a mechanism for arbitrating disputes over legal fees and costs.
& Prof.Code, § 6204, subd. (a).) A contractual right to binding arbitration survives if arbitration under the MFAA is waived or fails to resolve the dispute. ( Schatz, at pp. 562, 574–575, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 700, 198 P.3d 1109;Ervin, Cohen & Jessup, LLP v. Kassel (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 821, 828–829, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 685.) “ ‘The MFAA was first proposed by the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California in 1976 when, finding that disputes concerning legal fees were the most serious problem between members of the bar and the public, the board sought to create a mechanism for arbitrating disputes over legal fees and costs.
But it is now settled a former client can waive its right to invoke the MFAA’s procedural protections. (Aguilar v. Lerner (2004) 32 Cal.4th 974, 987-988; Ervin, Cohen & Jessup, LLP v. Kassel (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 821, 827, 828-829; Law Offices of Dixon R. Howell v. Valley (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1094-1095.) A statutorily authorized form of waiver is a client’s failure to invoke the MFAA within 30 days after receiving a notice from counsel of his or her rights under the Act.
Had the parties not chosen to proceed under the MFAA, or, having done so, failed to comply with its requirements, either party could have sought to compel binding arbitration pursuant to the contractual binding arbitration clause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1280 et seq.; Aguilar v. Lerner (2004) 32 Cal.4th 974, 979, 983-990; Ervin, Cohen & Jessup, LLP v. Kassel (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 821, 823-824, 826-829.) We reject clients’ argument that they never chose nonbinding MFAA arbitration.
We do not suggest that a predispute arbitration provision in an attorney fee agreement is always, or even generally, illegal or unenforceable. (See Erwin, Cohen & Jessup, LLP v. Kassel (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 821, 828–829 [enforcing predispute arbitration provision where client did not opt for arbitration under Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200 et seq.)].) We address only the situation where an attorney fails to sign the fee agreement.