## Facts

- Chester Brewer, an Amtrak employee, sued Amtrak in Illinois state court for personal injuries under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act after he fell while inspecting track and injured his head and lower back.
- During a pretrial settlement conference in the judge’s chambers, counsel negotiated while Brewer and his wife were in the courthouse but not present in chambers.
- Counsel agreed to payment terms: $250,000 plus an additional $50,000 if Brewer underwent back surgery within six months after dismissal.
- The parties later disputed whether the settlement also required Brewer to resign from Amtrak:
  - Amtrak asserted Brewer’s counsel agreed to resignation.
  - Brewer’s counsel denied agreeing to any resignation condition.
- The written dismissal order dismissed the case with prejudice and reflected only the payment obligation; it did not mention resignation.
- Brewer, his wife, and his attorney submitted affidavits stating Brewer did not agree to resign, did not authorize any resignation term, and was not told resignation was a settlement condition.
- The trial court denied Brewer’s motion to vacate dismissal, granted Amtrak’s motion to enforce its version of the settlement, found resignation was a condition, and ordered Brewer to resign; the appellate court affirmed based on a presumption of attorney authority.

## Issues

1. Whether Brewer’s attorney had actual authority to agree to a settlement term requiring Brewer to resign his employment.
2. Whether a court may enforce a disputed, unwritten settlement term by relying on a general presumption of attorney authority and assumptions about off-the-record discussions despite contrary client affidavits.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and the trial court.
- The court held the record did not establish that Brewer authorized his attorney to agree to a resignation condition.
- The trial court erred by enforcing the contested resignation term and ordering Brewer to resign based on presumptions and assumptions rather than evidentiary support.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Settlement agreements are contracts, and their terms—especially disputed terms—must be proven by competent evidence.
- Although an attorney of record is generally presumed to have authority to settle litigation, that presumption is rebuttable and cannot replace proof when the client presents uncontradicted evidence of no authorization.
- An attorney’s implied settlement authority does not extend to surrender of a client’s substantial rights (such as continued employment) absent proof of the client’s actual authorization.
- A court should not enforce disputed settlement terms grounded in unrecorded discussions without resolving factual disputes through appropriate evidentiary procedures.

## Conclusion

The court rejected enforcement of a settlement term requiring the plaintiff’s resignation because the alleged condition was disputed, absent from the written dismissal order, and unsupported by evidence of client authorization beyond a rebuttable presumption of attorney authority.


Brewer v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 165 Ill. 2d 100, 649 N.E.2d 1331 (Ill. 1995)