Court Opinion

ID: 9727195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:24:48.551929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:34.692751
License: Public Domain

Justice EAKIN,
concurring.
I concur with the result in this case; however, I write separately because I believe the majority opinion is too far-reaching and, therefore, advisory in nature.
The majority pronounces the proper rule of law: “an attorney can only bind his client to a settlement based on express authority.” Majority op., at 792. Here, the attorney for appellants did not have such express authority to settle the case; the attorney stated “I don’t have client consent” in the very voicemail construed below as an “offer.” As such, the majority’s thoughtful analysis balancing the equities in this case is an unnecessary step—the absence of express authority ends the inquiry.
In Rothman v. Fillette, 503 Pa. 259, 469 A.2d 543 (1983), this Court was asked to determine which innocent party should bear the loss resulting from fraud perpetrated by Rothman’s attorney. Id., at 544. Here, there was no fraud perpetrated upon either party, and there was no loss; one party merely tried to benefit from the statements of another’s counsel made during settlement negotiations. Insofar as that decision has been interpreted to allow apparent authority to bind the client in a case without fraud, it is rightly rejected. However, as the finding that apparent authority existed here is in error, resolving this issue might better wait for another day.
Justice BAER joined.