unresolved, the claim is a disputed and contested claim. There [was] ample proof ... that Brown negotiated the amount of damages to be paid on behalf of parties other than himself. This activity required the use of legal skill and knowledge and, thus, constituted the practice of law.”). Nor does the fact that Bergantzel did not advise Mly-narik whether to accept the carrier’s offer affect our determination. The mere process of negotiating with the insurance company involved legal assessments that required the exercise of professional judgment regardless of whether Bergantzel shared her assessments or evaluations with Mlynarik. By negotiating a settlement on Mlynarik’s behalf, Bergantzel was indirectly advising Mlynarik on the settlement value of his claim. Cf. Brown, 742 S.W.2d at 41 (<HOLDING>). We hold that Bergantzel engaged in the
holding that because the alleged settlement was never approved by the court under rule 9019 the settlement agreement was unenforceable holding that adjuster impliedly advised his clients to accept a certain sum in settlement of their claim when he approved a settlement holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt holding a settlement privilege exists as to thirdparty discovery of settlement negotiations holding that in the context of a settlement contract the defrauded party may either 1 rescind the settlement or 2 ratify the settlement retain the proceeds and institute an action to recover fraud damages