Lexplug logoLexplug

Burrow v. Arce

Supreme Court of Texas
997 S.W.2d 229 (1999)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An attorney who commits a clear and serious breach of fiduciary duty may be required to forfeit all or part of their fee, regardless of whether the client can prove that the breach caused actual damages. The determination of whether to order forfeiture and in what amount is an equitable remedy decided by the court, not a jury.


Facts:

  • David Burrow, Walter Umphrey, and other attorneys (the Attorneys) represented 126 plaintiffs (the Clients) in lawsuits following a 1989 explosion at a Phillips 66 chemical plant.
  • The underlying lawsuits settled for approximately $190 million, from which the Attorneys received a contingent fee of more than $60 million.
  • Following the settlement, 49 of the Clients sued the Attorneys for professional misconduct.
  • The Clients alleged that the Attorneys solicited business through a lay intermediary, failed to investigate individual claims, entered into an aggregate settlement without client authority or approval, and coerced them into accepting the settlement.
  • The Clients also claimed that the contingent fee percentage in their contracts was left blank and later filled in with a higher rate than was orally promised.

Procedural Posture:

  • Forty-nine former clients (the Clients) sued their former attorneys (the Attorneys) in a Texas district court (trial court), alleging professional misconduct and seeking forfeiture of legal fees.
  • The Attorneys moved for summary judgment, arguing the Clients suffered no actual damages.
  • The district court granted summary judgment for the Attorneys, finding that the absence of actual damages precluded the Clients' claim for fee forfeiture.
  • The Clients appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed in part but reversed the summary judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty claim, holding that actual damages are not a prerequisite for fee forfeiture.
  • Both the Attorneys and the Clients petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas (the state's highest court) for review.

Locked

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 client need to prove they suffered actual damages resulting from an attorney's breach of fiduciary duty in order to seek the equitable remedy of fee forfeiture?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Hecht

No. A client need not prove actual damages to obtain forfeiture of an attorney's fee for the attorney's breach of fiduciary duty. The central purpose of the equitable remedy of fee forfeiture is to protect the integrity of the trust relationship between attorney and client by discouraging disloyalty, not primarily to compensate the client for a loss. The court reasoned that an attorney's compensation is for loyalty as well as for services, and a failure to provide that loyalty impairs the basis for compensation. Limiting forfeiture to cases with proven damages would create an incentive for agents to be disloyal when they believe their principal might not be harmed or have difficulty proving damages. Drawing on principles from the Restatements of Agency, Trusts, and The Law Governing Lawyers, the court concluded that forfeiture is a deterrent and a remedy for the breach of the relationship itself, independent of any monetary harm.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies fee forfeiture as a potent, standalone remedy for attorney misconduct in Texas, distinct from a traditional malpractice claim requiring proof of causation and damages. It establishes a discretionary, court-administered framework based on the Restatement, where judges weigh multiple factors to determine if forfeiture is warranted and in what amount. The ruling strongly reinforces the fiduciary nature of the attorney-client relationship, emphasizing that loyalty is a core, compensable component of legal services and its breach can have severe financial consequences for the attorney, thereby protecting the public interest in the integrity of the legal profession.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Burrow v. Arce (1999)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"