an opportunity to furnish further evidence concerning the circumstances surrounding the execution of the settlement, the majority of the WCCA panel ordered the award on stipulation to be set aside on the ground of mistake. The stated ground for vacation was that employee had shown that she had misunderstood the terms of the settlement and had believed the insurer would pay both her past and future medical expenses. We agree with the dissenting member of the panel that employee did not make a strong showing of mistake, particularly in light of the facts that she was represented by counsel and has never claimed that she did not receive legal advice from him. Cf. Schmidt v. DeBough Manufacturing Co., (WCCA, filed September 17, 1984), aff'd. without opinion (Minn., filed April 10, 1985) (<HOLDING>). However, we have repeatedly recognized that
holding that a corporate entity must be represented by licensed counsel holding counsels decision not to raise an issue unsupported by thenexisting precedent did not constitute ineffective assistance recognizing a defendants constitutional right to be represented by counsel of his own choice holding that similar unsupported averments by an employee who had also been represented by counsel at the time of settlement did not constitute a sufficient showing of mistake holding that pleadings filed by a criminal defendant who is represented by counsel are generally treated as a nullity