Settlement by an attorney without consent of a client may be unlawful, after all - the 2nd Circuit says

I recently had a case in front of Judge Robert Mulvey, the Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District.

I filed that case on behalf of my client and friend, a retired police officer.

The lawsuit was, among other things, against my client's prior attorney who:

1) had a conflict of interest in the case and confirmed it to his client;

2) received a direct instruction from his client not to settle a case pending in the Supreme Court in downstate New York;

3) made statements against his client in a related proceeding, further disqualifying himself from representing him;

4) promised his client to not settle the case without his consent;

5) turned around and settled the case, without telling his client (his client at that point);

6) never notified his client of the stipulation;

7) when his client learnt of the stipulation through other people, blocked his client from seeing the file; and

8) argued in support of dismissal of his own client's claims against him that he had an authority to settle "within the limits of insurance policy", without regard to what his client tells him - and obtained a dismissal like that.

That was last year.

This year, on November 5, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in the case Manuel Gomez v City of New York, New York City Police Department, Case No. 14-3583, said the following:

1) there is a presumption that an attorney entering into a settlement has authority from his client to do so, in order to bind his client; but

2) that presumption is rebuttable, and the court should allow evidence in for rebuttal of that presumption.

It means to me that the case decided by Mulvey was decided - as I argued all along - incorrectly and the dismissal may be reopened.