A party challenging an arbitration award on public policy grounds must file his or her motion to vacate within 30 days of notice of the award, according to the Connecticut Court of Appeals.

In Asselin & Connolly, Attorneys, LLC v. Heath, No. 28459, 2008 WL 2278637 (Conn. App. Ct. June 10, 2008), Heath hired Asselin to represent her in a family law matter. The parties' retainer contract contained an arbitration agreement. Heath failed to pay attorney fees and Asselin submitted a claim for arbitration. Heath argued to the arbitrator that the agreement was invalid because the governing rules were inapplicable to attorney-client disputes. Heath did not attend the proceedings. The arbitrator issued an award on the merits in favor of Asselin.

Asselin moved to confirm the award. Heath opposed with a motion to vacate, again alleging that this particular attorney-client dispute was not arbitrable and that enforcement of such agreements as to attorney-client disputes generally violates public policy. The trial court confirmed the award.

Noting that Heath had renewed her public policy objections to the award on appeal, the Court first found that Heath had not complied with the procedural requirement at the trial court that motions to vacate must be filed within 30 days following receipt of notice of the award. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-420(b). Despite Heath's urging to the contrary, the Court found that this 30 day limit applied to all grounds for vacatur, including public policy. See Town of Bloomfield v. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of Am., 939 A.2d 561, 568 (Conn. 2008) (holding that the statute's "broad language plainly states that the limitations period applies regardless of the grounds for the motion to vacate").

The Court held that Heath's challenge was clearly distinguishable from situations where the defendant challenged the award by alleging that no arbitration agreement existed between the parties. See, e.g. MBNA Am. Bank, N.A. v. Boata, 926 A.2d 1035, 1045 (Conn. 2007) (holding that an "existence" challenge is not time-barred after 30 days because that ground for vacatur is not statutory).

Finally, the Court alternatively held that Heath had failed to cite any precedent suggesting that attorney-client arbitration agreements were violative of public policy. While the state arbitration statute did exempt issues of "child support, visitation, and custody" from arbitration agreements regarding "dissolution of marriage," the agreement here was for legal representation in those matters, not for arbitral resolution of the matters themselves.