The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 Presidents Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 Presidents Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Trial Academy Master Class 6.0
    • The Business Of Law
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Attorney Misses Email and Mistakenly Settles Case Against Client Wishes

Posted on July 27, 2015 by Larry Bodine

missed emailThe Arizona Supreme court ruled that an attorney who mistakenly brokered a settlement against a client’s wishes had apparent authority to act on the client’s behalf, rendering the disputed settlement agreement enforceable.

The Robertson Group sued neighboring property owners, The Alling Group, over a water line.  Attorney Mark Sifferman represented the Alling Group.  The parties attempted mediation, but were unable to reach an agreement.

Settlement offer made

The Alling Group made a settlement offer requiring acceptance within 48 hours, according to court documents.  The Robertson Group attorney, Robert Grasso, informed Sifferman that it needed more time to the offer due to a Group member’s family emergency.

Sifferman advised the Alling Group to “leave the door open” for settlement.  Despite his recommendation, Alling Group members emailed Sifferman to tell him they did not want to extend the time and favored “removing the settlement offer proposed,”  according to the court opinion.

Attorney missed client email

Sifferman did not read the email and extended the same offer to Grasso two days later.  Grasso timely accepted the offer for his clients via email.  However, after Sifferman learned that his clients did not want to extend the original settlement offer, he made a new settlement offer that materially varied from offer Grasso already accepted.

The Alling Group contended that Sifferman did not have authority to extend the settlement offer against its wishes, and believed that rule 80(d), providing that no agreement in a matter is binding if disputed, was triggered.

The Robertson Group moved to enforce the settlement and the trial court granted its motion.  The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the dispute on Sifferman’s authority triggered Rule 80(d).

Attorney has apparent authority to act

The Arizona Supreme court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the settlement agreement was enforceable because Sifferman could “bind clients who have cloaked [him] with apparent authority to act on their behalf.”

The court also determined that the client is not required to assent separately in writing to a written agreement that its attorney has authority to broker.

In this case, Rule 80(d) of the state rules of civil procedure did not apply, because it is only applicable when the parties themselves dispute the existence or terms of an agreement.  Even if the rule did apply, the email exchanges between Sifferman and Grasso satisfied the rule, binding The Alling Group to the agreement.

 

The case is Robertson v. Alling, Case number CV-14-0246-PR filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona.

Posted in Blog, Personal Injury, Trial Practice

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Virginians Will Receive $489 Million in a Payday Loan Settlement

Virginians Will Receive $489 Million in a Payday Loan Settlement

Online payday loan companies that charged as much as 919% interest will spend $489 million to reimburse some 555,000 borrower[Read More...]
The State of Minnesota Will Pay $1.5 Million to a Man Who Alleged Excessive Force During an Arrest

The State of Minnesota Will Pay $1.5 Million to a Man Who Alleged Excessive Force During an Arrest

Minneapolis has agreed to pay $1.5 million to a man who said police used excessive force when he was arrested during the prot[Read More...]
A $230 Million Settlement Is Reached Over a 2015 Southern California Oil Spill

A $230 Million Settlement Is Reached Over a 2015 Southern California Oil Spill

The owner of an oil pipeline that spewed thousands of barrels of crude oil onto Southern California beaches in 2015 has agree[Read More...]
The LeClairRyan-UnitedLex Dispute Reaches a Pending $21 Million Settlement

The LeClairRyan-UnitedLex Dispute Reaches a Pending $21 Million Settlement

After a prolonged mediation process, the LeClairRyan bankruptcy estate looks to have reached a sizable settlement in one of t[Read More...]
The Families of Holyoke Soldiers Home Victims Reach a $56 Million Settlement

The Families of Holyoke Soldiers Home Victims Reach a $56 Million Settlement

Massachusetts has agreed to pay $56 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by the families of veterans who died or [Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.