California Attorney Sign Settlement Agreement

No Comments

Many transaction agreements contain confidentiality clauses. These provisions may be enforced through jurisdiction or arbitration clauses, lump sum damages clauses, and provisions relating to the winning party`s attorneys` fees. But what if the lawyer of one of the parties to the settlement pays the beans? Is the lawyer or his company contractually liable for this infringement against the opposing party? The Supreme Court overturned it in a unanimous opinion of Justice Corrigan. The Court concluded that the notation did not preclude a finding that the lawyer had recommended that his clients sign the document and intended to be bound by its provisions. The Schechter opinion also raises other questions. What is the counterpart of the commitment of the lawyer`s consent? Does the lawyer`s signature bind the entire firm or only the individual lawyer? What if the lawyer does not have the power to retain the firm? Would the contractual obligation follow the lawyer if he or she left the firm? Would this apply to new lawyers and associates who were not at the registry at the time the settlement agreement was signed? Lawyers often sign settlement agreements under the terms “formally approved” or “approved in form and content.” When signing the settlement agreement, a lawyer cannot expect to be bound by the agreement, but should it? This question was asked yesterday by the California Supreme Court to Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, Cal. S.

Ct. Case No. S251392 (July 11, 2019). The California Supreme Court noted that “approved in form and content” is confirmation that “the attorney has read the document, that it embodies the agreement of the parties, and that the attorney does not perceive any impediance to his client`s signature.” (cites Freedman v. Brutzkus, 182 Cal. App. 4th 1065, 1070 (2010)). However, the court did not stop and found that “the legal question is whether the signature of the lawyer authorizing an agreement on the form and content of the signature of his clients legally opposes the finding that he also intended to be bound by the agreement”.

The court concluded, referring to the parties` lawyers in the confidentiality provisions of the settlement agreement, that a lawyer`s signature on a document stating that it had been approved in terms of form and content did not legally preclude an actual finding that the lawyer intended to be bound by the terms of the document. In Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter 7 Cal.5th 781, (Cal. 2019), the California Supreme Court ruled that the signing of a settlement agreement by an attorney acknowledging that it was “approved in its form and content” may reflect the attorney`s intention to be bound to the agreement. In this case, Wendy Crossland and Monster Energy Company filed a product liability action…

Comments are closed.