Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C.
45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 470, 2002 Tex. LEXIS 24, 73 S.W.3d 193 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A law firm associate owes a fiduciary duty to their employer not to personally profit from referring a potential client to another lawyer or firm without the employer's consent. However, an associate does not breach this fiduciary duty by participating in such a referral if the associate receives no personal compensation, benefit, or other gain as a result.
Facts:
- James Chang, an associate at the law firm Brewer & Pritchard (B&P), was close friends with Henry King.
- After Henry King's father was severely injured in a helicopter crash, Chang told B&P partners that he could secure the crash victims as clients, presenting it as a major business opportunity for the firm.
- Chang discussed contingent fees and referral structures with a B&P partner but did not disclose his close personal friendship with the King family or his intention to assist them as a friend.
- Chang arranged meetings for Henry King with several personal injury attorneys, including Chang's close friend from law school, Nick Johnson.
- Chang billed expenses related to these meetings, including calls and faxes to King and Johnson, to B&P's business development account.
- Henry King retained Nick Johnson, who then referred the case to the law firm of Jamail & Kolius in exchange for 50% of the net attorney's fees.
- When questioned by B&P, Chang stated the firm had "lost out" on the case and denied knowing how the Jamail firm had been retained.
- Approximately one year after the case settled and Johnson received a $3 million referral fee, Chang and Johnson formed their own law partnership.
Procedural Posture:
- Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. sued its former associate, James Chang, and his partner, Nick Johnson, in a Texas trial court for claims including breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.
- The defendants, Johnson and Chang, filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Brewer & Pritchard's claims.
- Brewer & Pritchard, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Texas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment on most claims but reversed on the breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud claims, remanding them to the trial court.
- Johnson and Chang, as petitioners, appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to the Supreme Court of Texas.
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 associate breach a fiduciary duty to their employer by participating in the referral of a potential client to another lawyer or firm, if the associate receives no personal compensation or benefit from the referral?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Owen
No. A law firm associate does not breach a fiduciary duty to their employer by participating in the referral of a potential client to another lawyer or firm, as long as the associate receives no personal compensation, benefit, or other gain from the referral. The court reasoned that while an employee, as an agent, owes a duty of loyalty to their employer, this duty is not absolute. Public policy considerations, such as a client's right to obtain the most appropriate counsel and the promotion of market competition, must be balanced against the employer's interest in loyalty. Imposing a duty that would require an associate to bring every potential case to their employer, regardless of the firm's expertise or the client's best interests, would be unwise. The core of the fiduciary breach in this context is secret self-dealing; therefore, the duty is breached only when the associate personally profits or gains from the referral without the employer's consent.
Analysis:
This decision refines the scope of an associate attorney's fiduciary duty of loyalty to their employer, drawing a critical distinction between the act of referring a case and personally profiting from that referral. It establishes that the breach lies in the secret self-enrichment, not in the mere act of directing a potential client to more suitable counsel. This ruling provides a degree of protection for associates who may refer cases for ethical or personal reasons, while still holding them accountable for acts of disloyalty that involve personal financial gain. The case sets a precedent that balances a law firm's commercial interests with an attorney's broader professional responsibilities to the public and potential clients.
Unlock the full brief for Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C.