Also known as: settlement authorities · authority to settle
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
An executive power by which the President resolves claims of U.S. citizens against foreign governments through agreement. The power permits suspension of pending litigation in U.S. courts when Congress has implicitly approved the practice through a history of acquiescence.
An executive power by which the President resolves claims of U.S. citizens against foreign governments through agreement. The power permits suspension of pending litigation in U.S. courts when Congress has implicitly approved the practice through a history of acquiescence.
Nova Structures sues a foreign sovereign in federal court for breach of an embassy construction contract. The President signs an executive agreement that resolves all such disputes and directs courts to suspend enforcement. The agreement binds the parties and halts the litigation because the President acted with implicit congressional approval in the foreign affairs arena.
Power that a lawyer possesses to agree to a resolution of pending claims on a client's behalf. A lawyer must follow the client's explicit decision on whether to settle and may not override that decision even when a third party offers funding or urges a different outcome.
Officer Luis Diaz retains Keller to defend a civil rights suit and states that his sole objective is vindication at trial with no settlement. Keller later accepts a monetary offer without further consulting Diaz. The acceptance violates the allocation of authority because Diaz retained sole control over the decision whether to settle.
Power that a lawyer possesses to agree to a resolution of pending claims on a client's behalf. A lawyer must follow the client's explicit decision on whether to settle and may not override that decision even when a third party offers funding or urges a different outcome.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
The client decides whether to settle. A lawyer must abide by that decision and may not override it even when the lawyer believes settlement serves the client's interests or when a third party offers to fund the payment.
No. An explicit client instruction that the case must proceed to trial negates any suggestion of implied authority to settle. The lawyer must obtain express consent or continue toward trial.
No. A lawyer must promptly inform the client of any settlement offer that requires the client's consent. Withholding the offer deprives the client of the opportunity to make an informed choice.
The lawyer must seek clarification from the client entity rather than choose between the conflicting directives. An explicit in-person instruction from one partner controls until the conflict is resolved jointly.
No. The insured remains the client whose decision on settlement governs. The insurer's financial stake and strategic preferences do not displace the insured's authority over whether to accept or reject an offer.