Bohatch v. Butler & Binion
977 S.W.2d 543, 1998 Tex. LEXIS 13, 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 308 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A partnership's fiduciary duty to a partner does not include a duty to remain partners and, therefore, does not create a tort cause of action for expelling a partner who, in good faith, reports suspected ethical violations by another partner.
Facts:
- Colette Bohatch became a partner at the law firm Butler & Binion in February 1990.
- After reviewing internal billing reports, Bohatch became concerned that John McDonald, the managing partner of her office, was overbilling the firm's main client, Pennzoil.
- On July 15, 1990, Bohatch reported her concerns to the firm's managing partner, Louis Paine.
- The following day, McDonald confronted Bohatch, informed her that Pennzoil was dissatisfied with her work, and stated that her work would need to be supervised.
- The firm investigated Bohatch's allegations and concluded they were baseless after Pennzoil's in-house counsel confirmed that Pennzoil was satisfied the bills were reasonable.
- In August 1990, Paine told Bohatch the investigation was closed, that she should look for other employment, and the firm stopped assigning her work.
- Over the subsequent months, the firm denied Bohatch her 1990 year-end distribution, reduced her 1991 distribution to zero, and eventually terminated her monthly draw.
- Bohatch found new employment in September 1991.
Procedural Posture:
- Colette Bohatch sued Butler & Binion and several individual partners in state trial court for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the partnership agreement.
- The trial court jury found in favor of Bohatch, awarding her actual damages for lost wages and mental anguish, as well as punitive damages.
- The trial court rendered judgment on the jury's verdict, but reduced the punitive damages upon Bohatch's acceptance of a remittitur.
- All parties appealed to the court of appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The court of appeals, as appellant, reversed the judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty claim, finding no evidence the firm expelled Bohatch for self-gain.
- The court of appeals found a breach of the partnership agreement, however, and rendered judgment for Bohatch for $35,000 in lost earnings and attorney's fees.
- Bohatch, as petitioner, and the firm, as respondent, both sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a law firm breach its fiduciary duty to a partner by expelling her for reporting, in good faith, her suspicion that another partner was overbilling a client?
Opinions:
Majority - Enoch, J.
No. A partnership does not breach its fiduciary duty by expelling a partner for reporting suspected overbilling. The fiduciary duty that partners owe one another does not encompass a duty to remain partners. A partnership is built on personal confidence and trust, and an accusation of unethical billing, whether true or not, can irreparably destroy that trust. Forcing partners to remain in such an untenable relationship would be detrimental to both the partners and their clients. While lawyers have an ethical duty to report misconduct, the fact that this duty may create a schism between partners does not transform a subsequent expulsion into a tort.
Dissenting - Spector, J.
Yes. Partners in a law firm violate their fiduciary duty by retaliating against another partner for complying with the ethical obligation to report suspected misconduct. The practice of law is a profession with duties to clients and the public that transcend ordinary business relationships. Allowing a firm to punish a partner for making a good-faith report of overbilling undermines the self-regulating nature of the legal profession and discourages compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct. Retaliation for good-faith reporting assures that other lawyers will not take appropriate steps to correct misconduct in the future.
Concurring - Hecht, J.
No, but the majority's reasoning is too broad. The firm did not breach its fiduciary duty by expelling Bohatch because her good-faith report of overbilling proved to be incorrect. A law firm can expel a partner for a serious, albeit good-faith, error in judgment that threatens the firm's relationship with a major client and destroys internal trust. However, the Court should not have created an absolute rule that a firm can never be liable for expelling a partner for reporting unethical conduct, as there could be circumstances where such an expulsion would be a culpable breach of fiduciary duty, particularly if the report were correct.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that, in Texas, the at-will nature of partnerships is paramount, even in the context of professional ethical obligations. It prioritizes the internal trust and stability of a partnership over creating a public policy exception that would protect whistleblowing partners from retaliatory expulsion. The ruling creates a significant risk for attorneys who report suspected misconduct within their firms, as it forecloses a tort remedy for wrongful expulsion, potentially chilling compliance with ethical reporting duties. This case solidifies the principle that partners are not legally required to continue their association when foundational trust is broken, regardless of the cause.
