slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Combined Legal Strands: Tort + Equity + Agency +/- Contract

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 13

Combined Legal Strands: Tort + Equity + Agency +/- Contract - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 122 Views
  • Uploaded on

Ch. 4 Breach of Fiduciary Duty A. Changing Language of Duty Contrast: measured language of negligence with demanding language of fiduciary duty. Demanding language: “ puntilio of an honor most sensitive” vs. practical realities; need to re-ground in tort & contract common law standards

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Combined Legal Strands: Tort + Equity + Agency +/- Contract' - candie


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1
Ch. 4 Breach of Fiduciary DutyA. Changing Language of DutyContrast: measured language of negligence with demanding language of fiduciary duty

Demanding language: “puntilio of an honor most sensitive” vs. practical realities; need to re-ground in tort & contract common law standards

Essential fiduciary duties: preserve confidences, avoid impermissible conflicts (loyalty), honesty & fair dealings, safeguard property. See Rstmt §16(3)

combined legal strands tort equity agency contract
Combined Legal Strands: Tort + Equity + Agency +/- Contract

Tort: negligent, reckless or intentional breaches of fiduciary duties

Equity: accounting, injunction, constructive trust, forfeiture; “equity does what needs to be done” & malleable equitable doctrines (unclean hands, estoppel, etc.)

Agency: Client is Principal, with authority to control & direct conduct of Agent (including Lawyer) See, e.g., Rstmt §20: Duty to inform & consult with Client

p burden of proof d strategy
P: Burden of Proof & D: Strategy
  • Some jurisdictions: relaxed standard (“substantial factor” rather than “but for”)
  • P & D both need expert witnesses (single expert to address both negligence & fiduciary duties)
  • Risk that conflict of interest can morphe ordinary negligence claim into actionable fiduciary breach > increase damage exposure
  • Defense strategies: motions to dismiss, for summary judgment & to exclude evidence
b disclosure obligations
B. Disclosure Obligations

Informed consent doctrine?

Recall: Prob. 3-6 Summer Associate’s Memo. C should make settlement decision with Informed Consent (IC), after full disclosure of material risks & relevant alternatives.

See Rstmt §20, RPC 1.0(e) “agreement …to proposed course of conduct after L communicated adequate info. & explanation about mat’l risks of & rsnbly avail. alts. to proposed course of conduct. (used in RPC 1.2, 1.6-1.9)

Highest disclosure obligations apply when adversity in interests of lawyer & client, especially lawyer self-interest (e.g., fees, business transactions; sex; confidential information; other preferred clients)

Text at 105-111

limits on disclosure obligations need not disclose information if text at 109 11
Limits on Disclosure Obligations: Need Not Disclose Information if (text at 109-11)
  • Beyond scope of representation;
  • Immaterial; unreliable;
  • Already known by client;
  • Competing obligations require confidentiality;
  • Client reasonably agreed to nondisclosure;
  • Disclosure would cause serious harm to client or others.
c fee forfeiture
C. Fee Forfeiture

Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. 1999) (text pp. 112-16)

∙Alleged breaches; procedural posture; disposition

·Reciprocal influence of Restatement tentative drafts & judicial decisions; conversion table (Tent. Draft § 49 > as adopted in 2000 §37)

∙Judicial discretion to consider total or partial forfeiture, even in absence of actual harm to client

∙Standard: “clear and serious” violation of duty owed client; TX: public interest (protect integrity of L/Cl relationships by discouraging agents’ disloyalty)

∙Jury: disputed fact questions

Judge: questions of law, amount of forfeiture

rstmt 37 fee forfeiture factors
Rstmt §37 Fee Forfeiture Factors
  • Gravity & timing of violation
  • Willfulness
  • Effect on value of lawyer’s work
  • Actual or threatened harm to client
  • Adequacy of other remedies
  • Public interest in maintaining integrity of attorney-client relationships (Texas)
problem 4 1 we are just friends text at 116 17 skipped
Problem 4-1 “We are Just Friends” text at 116-17, SKIPPED
  • L&L: made lateral move from P&W (Atlanta, associates in employment litigation) to A&B (Memphis litigation matters, “non-equity partners”, compensation package partly based on business generated)
  • L&L for Plaintiff Jane Cady v. Midsouth (P&W lawyers as fact witnesses): unsuccessful employment arbitration before single arbitrator
  • TASK: Evaluate potential exposure for Malpractice Carrier
prob 4 1
Prob. 4-1
  • Fiduciary breaches?
    • Litigation decisions? (failure to cx P&W fact witnesses)
    • Non-disclosure of relationship w/ P&W? vs. active deception?
    • Breach of loyalty?
  • Damages caused to Client?
    • Fee forfeiture?
d aiding abetting a breach of fiduciary duty text pp 117 28
D. Aiding & Abetting a Breach of Fiduciary Duty (text pp. 117-28)
  • Contours of liability remain uncertain (i.e., “dangerous theory”
  • P = client (e.g., corp. or partnership); D L helped constituent, e.g., President or another partner breach duty owed to client)
  • Liability more difficult where P = nonclient (e.g., Norton, situations in Rstmt §51 & material in Ch. 5)
elements
Elements
  • Fiduciary breached duty owed to P (e.g., Collensbee breached duty owed Norton)
  • Dft Lawyer provided “substantial assistance” to fiduciary’s achievement of the breach
  • Dft Lawyer knew, or is deemed to have known that fiduciary’s conduct was a breach (circumstantial evidence or constructive knowledge)
  • Fiduciary’s breach caused P’s damages
reynolds v schrock 142 p 3d 1062 or 2006 text pp 125 27
Reynolds v. Schrock, 142 P.3d 1062)(Or. 2006) text pp. 125-27
  • Qualified privilege insulates lawyer from liability, if lawyer’s conduct on behalf of client falls within the permissible scope of scope of representation (e.g., L merely acted as scrivener, not chargeable with knowledge of and complicity with the breach)
  • NOT privileged if L 1) acted outside permissible scope of the cl/L relationship; 2) assisted client with crime or fraud; 3) acted in self-interest
e intra firm fiduciary duties
E. Intra-Firm Fiduciary Duties
  • Partners: mutual agents with full range of duties (disclose material facts, not divert business opportunities, engage in competing enterprise, or otherwise prefer own self-interest over partners)
  • Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C., 73 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. 2002) (associate does not breach duty to firm by referring client or potential client to outside lawyer, absent any pecuniary gain to associate)
  • Many complex legal issues, especially on lateral moves, break-off firms. See Robert W. Hillman, Hillman on Lawyer Mobility
ad