Client
is not bound by settlement agreement where client has not given attorney
actual authority to settle the case on those terms.
Makins v. District of Columbia,
389 F.3d 1303 (D.C. Cir.
December 3, 2004) - In Makins v. District of Columbia, 277 F.3d 544
(D.C. Cir. January 18, 2002), the Court certified the following question to
the District of Columbia Court of Appeals: "Under District of Columbia law,
is a client bound by a settlement agreement negotiated by her attorney when
the client has not given the attorney actual authority to settle the case on
those terms but has authorized the attorney to attend a settlement
conference before a magistrate judge and to negotiate on her behalf and when
the attorney leads the opposing party to believe that the client has agreed
to those terms?" The D.C. Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, answered
the question in the negative. The D.C. Circuit therefore sets aside the
district court's enforcement of the agreement on the basis of the attorney's
apparent authority. Further proceedings on remand are needed to resolve the
remaining evidentiary dispute about the attorney's actual authority to
settle the case.
