Johann Keil and Catherine Keil - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         
          confer the requisite settlement authority upon Montgomery.  See             
          Levy v. Superior Court, 896 P.2d 171 (Cal. 1995); Blanton v.                
          Womancare, Inc., 696 P.2d 645, 649-653 (Cal. 1985); see also                
          Harrop v. W. Airlines, Inc., supra at 1145 (“an attorney has no             
          authority, either actual or implied, to settle an action without            
          the express permission of his client”).5                                    
               Respondent argues primarily that Montgomery during his                 
          December 15, 2003, telephone conversation with Mr. Keil received            
          express settlement authority.  We disagree.  Whether Montgomery             
          at that time obtained express authority to settle some or all of            
          petitioners’ case is a question of fact.  Adams v. Commissioner,            
          85 T.C. 359, 369-372 (1985).  The facts at hand support a                   
          conclusion contrary to that argued by respondent.  Although                 


               5 We also note a recent observation by the U.S. Supreme                
          Court in Banks v. Commissioner, 543 U.S.    , 125 S. Ct. 826                
          (2005).  There, the Court stated:                                           
               The relationship between client and attorney,                          
               regardless of the variations in particular compensation                
               agreements or the amount of skill and effort the                       
               attorney contributes, is a quintessential                              
               principal-agent relationship.  * * *  The client may                   
               rely on the attorney’s expertise and special skills to                 
               achieve a result the client could not achieve alone.                   
               That, however, is true of most principal-agent                         
               relationships, and it does not alter the fact that the                 
               client retains ultimate dominion and control over the                  
               underlying claim.  The control is evident when it is                   
               noted that, although the attorney can make tactical                    
               decisions without consulting the client, the plaintiff                 
               still must determine whether to settle or proceed to                   
               judgment and make, as well, other critical decisions.                  
               [Id. at    , 125 S.Ct. at 832-833.]                                    




Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011