Professional Negligence – Breach of Fiduciary Duty in Texas

What Is a Breach of Fiduciary Duty?

Background

“A fiduciary relationship exists between an attorney and a client as a matter of law.” (See Goffney v. Rabson (2001) 56 S.W.3d 186, 193.)

“The term fiduciary refers to integrity and fidelity.” (See Melvin Hous. v. Ludwick, No. 14-09-00600-CV, at *1 (Tex. App. Oct. 21, 2010).)

“A breach of fiduciary duty claim encompasses whether an attorney obtained an improper benefit from the representation.” (See Dr. Mcinnis v. Mallia, No. 14-09-00931-CV, at *1 (Tex. App. Mar. 8, 2011).)

“A claim for breach of fiduciary duty by a lawyer involves the ‘integrity and fidelity’ of an attorney and focuses on whether an attorney obtained an improper benefit from representing the client.” (See Stallworth v. Ayers (2016) 510 S.W.3d 187, 191 n.3.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

"An attorney breaches his fiduciary duty when he benefits improperly from the attorney-client relationship by, among other things, subordinating his client's interest to his own, retaining the client's funds, engaging in self-dealing, improperly using client confidences, failing to disclose conflicts of interest, or making misrepresentations to achieve these ends." (See Stallworth v. Ayers (2016) 510 S.W.3d 187, 191 n.3.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“We review a summary judgment de novo.” (See Harkins v. Wal-Mart Stores Tex., LLC, No. 02-21-00201-CV, at *9 (Tex. App. June 23, 2022).)

“The movant for summary judgment has the burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co. (1985) 690 S.W.2d 546, 548; Powell v. Foxall (2001) 65 S.W.3d 756, 758.)

“In deciding whether a disputed material fact issue precludes summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant is taken as true.” (See id.)

“Every reasonable inference in favor of the non-movant is indulged and any doubts are resolved in its favor.” (See id.)

“The movant must either disprove at least one element of each of plaintiff's theories of recovery or conclusively establish each essential element of an affirmative defense.” (See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth. (1979) 589 S.W.2d 671, 678; Powell v. Foxall (2001) 65 S.W.3d 756, 758.)

“If the movant conclusively proves all essential elements of his defense, the burden shifts to the non-movant.” (See Powell v. Foxall (2001) 65 S.W.3d 756, 758.)

“The non-movant must answer that affirmative defense for summary judgment purposes.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “the focus of breach of fiduciary duty is whether an attorney obtained an improper benefit from representing a client, while the focus of a legal malpractice claim is whether an attorney adequately represented a client.” (See Messner v. Boon (2015) 466 S.W.3d 191, 204.)

As such, it is well settled that “an independently actionable breach of fiduciary duty claim is generally one that focuses on whether an attorney obtained an improper benefit from representing the client, rather than whether the attorney represented the client with the requisite level of skill and care.” (See Law Office of Oscar C. Gonzalez, Inc. v. Sloan (2014) 447 S.W.3d 98, 112.)

Documents for Professional Negligence – Breach of Fiduciary Duty in Texas

Sort By

RICHARD SQUIRES, et al vs. BRIAN LADIN, et al document preview

NOTICE OF HEARING RE: PLAINTIFF MTN APPOINT RECEIVER - MOTION HEARING

8 pages

I 2/19/2024 12:14 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Lafonda Sims DEPUTY CAUSE…