to obtain the incorporated document before signing the contract or risk being bound by its terms. In fact, the face of the contract includes the following warning immediately above the incorporation language: “This document has important legal consequences. Consultation with an attorney is encouraged with respect to its completion or modification.” Consequently, Chabad is presumed to have known about, and accepted, the express language of incorporation on the face of the contract and the terms of the incorporated A201-1997, even if the incorporated document was not attached and Chabad failed to obtain and read it. See Nat’l Prop. Holdings, 453 S.W.3d at 425; Lyon Fin. Seros., 257 S.W.3d at 232; Indem. Ins. Co., 101 S.W.2d at 556; see also Raymond James & Assocs., 196 S.W.3d at 318-19 (<HOLDING>). On appeal, Chabad presents two additional
recognizing that counsel have the authori ty to file an appeal on their clients behalf even when the client does not expressly give them his consent to do so holding that when an attorney represents multiple clients and a dispute between the attorney and one client later occurs there is a waiver of the privilege but only by the client asserting the liability holding broker and clients agreed to arbitration where newaccount forms signed by clients expressly incorporated separate unsigned client agreement containing arbitration provision even if client agreement was not attached or read by clients because they were presumed to have read newaccount form which placed them on notice of client agreement holding that ambiguous agreement between attorney and client must be construed in the clients favor holding that attorney breached duty to client by ignoring clients instruction to conduct particular discovery