less..
This case involved a dispute between parties that spanned litigation in Wisconsin and Indiana. In email communications, counsel for one party proposed a mutual dismissal of the various claims in the various courts by all the parties. After a series of e-mails, one party's attorney denied that a settlement had been reached and rejected the proposed written agreement. The other party then instituted proceedings to enforce the settlement agreement. The trial court denied the motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

On appeal, the Court noted that there was no factual dispute concerning counsels' authority to bind their clients when exchanging the email. The Court noted that all of the parties agreed, via email to the essential terms, i.e. that the parties would mutually release their claims with prejudice. The fact that the parties contemplated that the motions to dismiss and releases would be executed later did not affect the existence of an agreement to settle.


Thus, the settlement agreement was binding.

The lesson here is clear - if you engage with settlement discussions with opposing counsel via email, then your client can be bound by those discussions, even if the parties do not actually execute a settlement agreement and release. Make sure that you actually communicate your client's wishes in these types of communications.

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
Download a copy of this article here