Eugene Hayes and Judy Hayes v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.
513 F.2d 892, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15316 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney cannot settle a client's case without the client's express authority and ratification of the specific settlement terms. An agreement among co-plaintiffs to be bound by a majority vote on a settlement offer is unenforceable against a dissenting client, as it violates the fundamental duties of the attorney-client relationship.
Facts:
- Eugene and Judy Hayes, along with 16 other plaintiffs, hired a single attorney to represent them in a lawsuit against Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.
- The attorney and the group of clients allegedly entered into a prior agreement that a majority vote would govern the decision to accept a settlement offer.
- The Hayeses and several other plaintiffs maintained that they had never agreed to be bound by a majority vote.
- On the eve of trial, Eagle-Picher offered a total of $155,000 to settle with the entire group of plaintiffs.
- A vote was taken among the plaintiffs regarding the settlement offer.
- Thirteen plaintiffs voted to accept the settlement, while five plaintiffs, including the Hayeses, voted against it.
- Despite the Hayeses' opposition, their attorney announced in open court that the case was settled based on the majority vote.
- The Hayeses immediately and unequivocally repudiated the settlement and subsequently discharged their attorney.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs sued Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. in a federal trial court.
- On the day of trial, the trial court entered a judgment based on the settlement announced by the plaintiffs' attorney.
- Following protests by the Hayeses, the trial court held a hearing and set aside the settlement judgment.
- The defendant, Eagle-Picher, filed a motion to reinstate the judgment.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion and reinstated the settlement judgment.
- The Hayeses (appellants) appealed the trial court's order reinstating the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an agreement allowing a majority of co-plaintiffs to approve a settlement bind dissenting minority co-plaintiffs against their express wishes?
Opinions:
Majority - William E. Doyle
No. An agreement that allows a case to be settled contrary to the wishes of a client is opposed to the basic fundamentals of the attorney-client relationship. It is a fundamental rule that an attorney does not have the authority to compromise a client's cause of action without express permission. Because an attorney is merely an agent for the client, the client's approval of the specific terms of a settlement is an essential prerequisite for it to be binding. Such a majority-rule agreement is particularly problematic because it is made before the terms of a settlement are known, and it creates an ethical conflict for the attorney, who cannot loyally represent both the clients who favor settlement and those who oppose it. The Hayeses' failure to object in open court does not constitute ratification because they repudiated the unauthorized agreement immediately after learning of its terms.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the principle of individual client autonomy in settlement decisions, particularly in non-class action group litigation. It establishes that 'majority rule' settlement agreements are void as they violate an attorney's duty of loyalty to each individual client. The ruling clarifies that an attorney's authority to settle cannot be delegated to a group of co-plaintiffs and that each client retains the ultimate, non-delegable right to approve or reject the specific terms of a settlement offer. This precedent protects minority clients from being compelled by a majority to accept settlements they find unsatisfactory, ensuring that the attorney-client relationship remains a personal and direct one.
Unlock the full brief for Eugene Hayes and Judy Hayes v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.