Crook

—In this case we hold that a client is bound by her attorney’s written stipulation to a temporary judge in substantial compliance with rule 244, California Rules of Court.

After three postponements of the trial of this marital dissolution action due to court congestion, respondent Jasper Crook’s attorney suggested to appellant Rayvesta Crook’s attorney that they have the matter tried by retired Judge Earl Riley. Appellant’s attorney agreed. The attorneys signed a stipulated order for appointment of retired Judge Riley as temporary judge. Although signed by the attorneys, the written stipulation was not personally signed by respondent or appellant.

The presiding judge of the superior court approved the stipulation and appointed Judge Riley as temporary judge to preside at the trial. Judge Riley presided over trial of the action. After submission of written closing arguments Judge Riley announced his intended decision.

*32 Subsequently appellant, who had since changed attorneys, filed a motion to vacate the stipulation to Judge Riley. She urged that the proceedings before Judge Riley were void on the grounds appellant did not sign the stipulation, she was not informed by…