Summary
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals answered a certified question concerning whether a client is bound by an in-court settlement negotiated by an attorney without the client's actual authority to settle. The court held that, when the client is absent from a court-ordered settlement proceeding, the attorney must have actual authority to bind the client to the settlement; apparent authority is insufficient. A dissent would have applied ordinary agency principles permitting enforcement based on apparent authority.
Holdings
- A client is not bound by a settlement agreement negotiated by the client's attorney at an in-court proceeding when the client was absent unless the client granted the attorney actual authority to reach the settlement.
Questions Presented
- Under District of Columbia law, may an attorney bind an absent client to a settlement reached at a court-ordered, in-court settlement proceeding when the attorney lacks actual authority but has led the opposing party to believe that the client agreed to the settlement terms?
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (14)
- Bronson v. Borst, 404 A.2d 960 (D.C. 1979)(followed)
- Ashley v. Atlas Manufacturing Co., 7 F.R.D. 77 (D.D.C. 1946), aff'd, 166 F.2d 209 (1947)(distinguished)
- Navajo Tribe of Indians v. Hanosh Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 106 N.M. 705, 749 P.2d 90 (1988)(distinguished)
- Feltman v. Sarbov, 366 A.2d 137 (D.C. 1976)(followed in general, limited in context)
- Drazin v. Jack Pry, Inc., 154 A.2d 553 (D.C. 1959)(followed in general)
- Sigal Construction Corp. v. Stanbury, 586 A.2d 1204 (D.C. 1991)(distinguished)
- Management Partnership, Inc. v. Crumlin, 423 A.2d 939 (D.C. 1980)(distinguished)
- Goozh v. Capitol Souvenir Co., 462 A.2d 1140, 1142 (D.C. 1983)(followed in general)
- Brown v. Brown, 343 A.2d 59, 61 (D.C. 1975)(followed in general)
- Fennell v. TLB Kent Co., 865 F.2d 498 (2d Cir. 1989)(distinguished)
Showing top 10 of 14.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…