A provision in an attorney’s contingency fee agreement that purported to allow the attorney to consent on the client’s behalf (and over the client’s objection) to any settlement offer that the attorney thought was reasonable and in the client’s best interest violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and was void.  Such a provision creates an immediate, direct conflict of interest under rule 1.7 (b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct whenever the client and attorney disagree about settlement. The provision also forces the attorney to disclose details of the retainer agreement to opposing counsel in order to become effective, which violates the attorney’s duty of confidentiality to his or her client. (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.6(a); Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6149 [retainer agreement is confidential attorney-client communication].) And the provision seems logically inconsistent with the well understood rule that “the client’s power to discharge an attorney, with or without cause, is absolute.” (Fracasse v. Brent (1972) 6 Cal.3d 784, 790.)  A settlement the attorney agreed to over the client’s objection was also void.  The attorney was referred to the State Bar for disciplinary proceedings.