Page 1
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A client’s express contractual entrustment to her attorneys of the decision whether to accept a proposed settlement offer if they believed it would be advantageous to her was unenforceable, Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled, reversing a judgment in a personal injury case to which the plaintiff’s attorneys agreed over the client’s protest.
The panel referred the matter to the State Bar for possible disciplinary action against the attorneys.
Justice David A. Thompson wrote the opinion, filed Monday. The issue was apparently one of first impression—although the plaintiff’s attorney disputes that—given that Thompson pointed to no binding precedent proclaiming the invalidity of a clause in a retainer agreement relegating to the law firm the power to settle, and he relies on a nonbinding State Bar Court decision.
However, attorney Peter diDonato of Valencia, who represented plaintiff Sayedeh Sahba Amjadi in the Orange Superior Court and on appeal—said yesterday of the opinion:
“I believe that it only re-affirms long-standing case law and ethical rules that the attorney works for the client as a fiduciary and that refusal of the attorney to abide by the client’s ultimate right to determine finality of a personal injury claim impedes and violates that fiduciary relationship.”
Wording of Provision
The clause in the retainer agreement between Amjadi and the Mission Viejo firm of Jolly Berry Law reads:
“CLIENT agrees that if...
Read Full Story: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2021/SettlementPower_09012021.htm
Your content is great. However, if any of the content contained herein violates any rights of yours, including those of copyright, please contact us immediately by e-mail at media[@]kissrpr.com.