Malacko's original retainer is not a governing consideration. The evidence fully supports the trial court's findings that Malacko was authorized to negotiate a global settlement and that such an agreement was reached and approved by Malacko and by appellant himself. The workers' compensation attorney was involved in the initiation of mediation and, while not included in the October telephone conference, was consulted and updated by Malacko as to the proceedings. There is ample evidence permitting the trial court's findings and conclusion that the global settlement agreement was authorized and approved by appellant. Appellant contends that for an agreement to be executed, it must be in writing.
Execution encompasses many forms of making or completing an agreement.
Nothing in the statute precludes the common law acceptance of oral agreements. If the statute applies to the agreement in this case, it plainly contemplates the eventual occurrence of a written stipulation agreement. It is nevertheless clear that the statute contains no language that would supercede common law principles on the enforceability of a proper oral agreement. Appellant points to the following language in Minn. Stat. Respondent contends and the trial court agreed that the aim of the quoted language is to protect a party from entering into a stipulation without knowledge or understanding of their rights and the effects of the agreement.