Background
The plaintiff and defendant settled a sexual abuse lawsuit in October 2019 pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement requiring two payments from defendant to plaintiff. The agreement included explicit confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions. The defendant made the first payment timely, but after discovering posts by the plaintiff’s attorney on the attorney’s law firm website and Facebook page disclosing settlement terms and making disparaging comments about the defendant, the defendant refused to make the second payment due April 30, 2020.
The plaintiff’s attorney, Kevin C. Ferry, had published an article titled “Bruce Bemer—settles all fifteen lawsuits pending against him” that revealed the existence and confidential terms of the settlement, and posted a Facebook link with a photo of the defendant calling him “creepy looking.” The defendant claimed these posts breached the settlement agreement’s confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions, excusing him from further payment obligations. The plaintiff sued for the unpaid amount; the defendant countersued for breach of contract.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant’s core argument—that the plaintiff breached the settlement agreement through Attorney Ferry’s posts and was therefore excused from payment—failed because the defendant could not prove Ferry was acting as the plaintiff’s agent when he published the posts.
Under Connecticut agency law, an attorney’s actions can be imputed to a client only when the attorney acts at the client’s request, for the client’s benefit, or in furtherance of the business for which retained. The court found no evidence meeting any of these criteria: the plaintiff did not direct or authorize the posts, did not benefit from them, had no knowledge of them, and they were not in furtherance of Ferry’s legal representation (the underlying case had already concluded and settled). The posts appeared to be marketing for Ferry’s law firm, not advancement of the plaintiff’s interests. Merely maintaining an attorney-client relationship does not automatically make an attorney’s conduct attributable to the client.
Key Takeaways
- An attorney’s wrongful conduct cannot be attributed to a client absent evidence the attorney acted at the client’s request, for the client’s benefit, or in furtherance of the representation.
- An ongoing attorney-client relationship does not automatically confer agency authority for the attorney’s independent actions, particularly after the underlying matter has been resolved.
- Agency requires proof of actual or apparent authority; the burden rests on the party asserting the agency relationship exists.
- Confidentiality breaches by an attorney do not excuse a client’s contractual obligations unless the client authorized or benefited from the breach.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies important limitations on attorney agency, protecting clients from being held liable for attorney misconduct they did not authorize, encourage, or benefit from. It establishes that attorney-client relationships do not automatically extend an attorney’s implied or apparent authority beyond the scope of the representation. Settlement agreements depend critically on confidentiality, and this ruling confirms that clients cannot escape payment obligations by blaming their attorneys for breaching confidentiality provisions, absent proof of client authorization or agency.
The opinion is significant for litigants relying on confidentiality protections in settlement agreements and for understanding the scope of attorney authority post-settlement. Courts will not impute attorney misconduct to a client merely because the attorney-client relationship technically persists if there is no evidence the client directed, knew of, or benefited from the attorney’s actions.