Dist. Ct. did not err in granting motion by certain attorneys in instant class action fee dispute to find that disputing attorney was bound by written agreement that had memorialized prior oral agreement by all class action attorneys to split fee award according to agreed-upon percentages, even though disputing attorney had failed to sign written agreement. Record showed that after all attorneys had orally agreed to percentage split of fees, disputing attorney suggested only two changes to text of proposed written agreement that were subsequently incorporated into said agreement. As such, Dist. Ct. could reasonably construe disputing attorney’s subsequent two-week silence before agreement was tendered to all attorneys for their signatures as assent to be bound by said agreement, and that disputing attorney's subsequent objection to signing agreement was motivated only by “buyer’s remorse” over actual fee split.