## Facts

- Cathryn Westerhaus retained attorney Michael J. Friesen on a contingency fee to pursue a personal-injury claim arising from a slip-and-fall at a Dairy Queen in Liberal, Kansas.
- Westerhaus repeatedly stated she did not want to proceed to trial; on March 26, 1997, she wrote that she would not go to trial but would accept a settlement if obtained without further involvement from her.
- By May 31, 1997, Friesen advised Westerhaus that opposing counsel wanted her deposition and that settlement and dismissal were both possible.
- On June 4, 1997, Westerhaus wrote that she would not sit for a deposition and directed Friesen to dismiss the case; the letter did not authorize settlement.
- On June 8, 1997, Friesen replied that he told opposing counsel Westerhaus wanted dismissal but that he would try to negotiate “something” to cover her medical bills and partially compensate him; he stated she would not have to accept any offer.
- Westerhaus did not further respond.
- Friesen negotiated a $2,400 settlement and endorsed the settlement check on Westerhaus’s behalf.
- Westerhaus refused to accept the settlement proceeds and filed a disciplinary complaint.
- A disciplinary hearing panel found a violation of KRPC 1.2(a) and recommended public censure.

## Issues

1. Whether a lawyer violates KRPC 1.2(a) by settling a client’s civil claim after the client explicitly instructed the lawyer to dismiss the action and did not authorize settlement.
2. What discipline is appropriate when a lawyer disregards client authority over settlement and case objectives.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court adopted the hearing panel’s findings.
- The court held that Friesen violated KRPC 1.2(a) by settling after the client directed dismissal and without client consent to accept a settlement.
- The court imposed public censure.

## Legal Principles

- Under KRPC 1.2(a), a lawyer must abide by the client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation.
- Under KRPC 1.2(a), the decision to accept or reject a settlement belongs to the client; a lawyer may not settle without client authorization.
- A client’s explicit instruction to terminate litigation (including dismissal) controls unless unlawful or unethical; the lawyer’s belief that settlement is better does not override that instruction.
- Client silence after an instruction to dismiss does not supply settlement authority.
- Mitigating circumstances (such as lack of dishonest motive) may affect sanction selection but do not negate a violation of KRPC 1.2(a).

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court publicly censured Friesen for violating KRPC 1.2(a) by overriding a client’s express direction to dismiss the case and unilaterally completing a settlement without the client’s consent.


In re Friesen, 268 Kan. 57, 991 P.2d 400 (Kan. 1999)