## Facts

- Harriette Blanton sued an abortion clinic, a fourth-year medical student, and a supervising physician for malpractice after an abortion allegedly perforated her uterus.
- On the eve of trial, Blanton’s lawyer obtained a written stipulation removing the case from the trial calendar and submitting it to binding arbitration.
- The stipulation capped any plaintiff award at $15,000 and gave defense counsel the right to select the arbitrator.
- The lawyer also stipulated to dismiss the supervising physician with prejudice.
- Blanton did not know of either stipulation for nearly three months; once informed, she promptly objected, discharged counsel, retained new counsel, and moved to set aside the stipulations for lack of consent.
- Blanton’s lawyer admitted she would agree to arbitration only if her right to a trial de novo was preserved, but the stipulation provided for binding arbitration.
- The trial court upheld the arbitration stipulation as within counsel’s authority and entered judgment for defendants based on the arbitrator’s award.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney may, without a client’s informed and explicit consent, bind the client to a stipulation for binding arbitration that waives a judicial trial and limits potential recovery.
2. Whether such a stipulation is enforceable against the client under actual or apparent authority principles when it contradicts the client’s expressed limitations.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment.
- The court held the attorney lacked authority to stipulate to binding arbitration, a damages cap, and related concessions without Blanton’s informed and explicit consent.
- The arbitration agreement and resulting award were invalid as to Blanton.
- The case was remanded with directions to set aside the arbitration agreement and award and to proceed to a trial de novo in superior court.

## Legal Principles

- The attorney-client relationship is governed by agency law; a lawyer is a special agent whose authority is limited to the client’s authorization.
- Counsel has implied authority over routine procedural and tactical litigation steps, but not over decisions that substantially affect the client’s rights.
- A stipulation to binding arbitration is not merely procedural because it waives the right to a judicial forum (and potentially a jury) and can materially limit recovery.
- An attorney cannot waive a client’s substantial rights without the client’s informed and explicit consent, especially when the client has imposed express limitations.
- Apparent authority must arise from the client’s manifestations to the opposing party; counsel’s general status as attorney of record does not, by itself, establish authority to surrender substantial rights.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that binding arbitration and a damages cap fundamentally alter a client’s rights and therefore require the client’s informed, explicit approval; absent such consent, the stipulation and judgment on the arbitration award cannot stand and the client is entitled to a judicial trial.


Blanton v. Womancare, Inc., 38 Cal. 3d 396 (Cal. 1985)