Response or Comment
It is not unusual that agreements between attorneys and clients providing for contingent fees contain a stipulation to the effect that no settlement of the controversy concerning which there is a bargain for fees shall be made by the client without the attorney's consent. In the recent case of Davy et at. v. Fidelity and Casualty Ins. Co., 85 N. E. 504, the Supreme Court of Ohio condemns such an agreement as champertous and, by the citation of many Ohio decisions, "demonstrates that this court has always maintained a consistent and unambiguous attitude in regard to contracts of the kind which we have in this case." The court holds that the illegal stipulation renders the whole contract illegal and indivisible, and that the illegal stipulation cannot be ignored and the other provisions of the contract enforced.
Brewster, James H. "Invalid Contracts for Contingent Fees." Mich. L. Rev. 7 (1908): 61-2.