In Link v. Wabash, 370 U.S. 626, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962), the trial court sua sponte dismissed a case for want of prosecution when counsel failed to attend a pretrial conference and was historically dilatory. The client there had claimed that dismissal worked an unjust penalty on him. Link at 633, 82 S. Ct. at 1390. In response, the Court stated: Petitioner voluntarily chose this attorney as his representative in the action, and he cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of this freely selected agent. Any other notion would be wholly inconsistent with our system of representative litigation, in which each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have 'notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney." Id. at 633-34, 82 S. Ct. at 1390. However the Court, in considering the fact that the trial court had not given notice of possible sua sponte dismissal to the aggrieved party, further stated that given the history of counsel's dilatory conduct, due process arguments were unconvincing, especially when the client did not first seek remedy available under Rule 60(b) for setting aside final orders inadvisedly entered. Id., 370 U.S. at 632, 82 S. Ct. at 1389-90. A pparently, the Link Court believed that rule 60(b) may have been available as relief from the judgment, notwithstanding conduct of counsel, at least upon the inadvised grant of judgment.