Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. v. Fegen
316 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 33, 3 P.3d 1172, 197 Ariz. 252 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A personal representative and their attorneys breach their fiduciary duty of fairness and impartiality to an estate's successors when they have an undisclosed conflict of interest, such as concurrently representing creditors of the estate. While estate successors are not clients owed a duty of loyalty, the attorney-fiduciary's conflicting duty of undivided loyalty to their creditor-clients compromises the required impartiality towards all interested parties in the estate.
Facts:
- John Fogelman died, leaving a will that named Richard Sheffield as the personal representative of his estate.
- Sheffield was a partner at the law firm Snell & Wilmer, and he hired the firm to represent him in his capacity as personal representative.
- Fogelman's will directed the estate to pay the taxes on a $1.5 million life insurance policy that passed outside the will, and specifically instructed Sheffield not to seek reimbursement from the insurance beneficiaries.
- In addition to representing Sheffield, the Snell & Wilmer law firm also represented several of the estate's creditors in other matters.
- Sheffield determined that the estate was insolvent, meaning its assets were insufficient to pay all of its debts and the taxes on the life insurance policy as directed by the will.
- Due to the estate's insolvency, Sheffield attempted to apportion the taxes among the insurance beneficiaries, contrary to the will's instructions.
- The insurance beneficiaries, including Fogelman's children, objected to paying the taxes and asked Sheffield to resign due to the dispute.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Sheffield filed a petition for instructions in the probate court seeking guidance on the tax-payment issue.
- The probate court ordered Sheffield not to seek contribution from the life insurance beneficiaries.
- The insurance beneficiaries objected to Sheffield's request for fees and petitioned to have him removed as personal representative, alleging a conflict of interest.
- The trial court found that Sheffield and his firm, Snell & Wilmer, had a conflict of interest, breached their fiduciary duty, and acted in bad faith.
- The trial court removed Sheffield as personal representative, disqualified Snell & Wilmer from the case, and significantly reduced their requested legal fees.
- Sheffield and Snell & Wilmer (Appellants) appealed the trial court's findings on the ethical violations, breach of fiduciary duty, and bad faith to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
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 personal representative, who is a partner in a law firm, breach the fiduciary duty of fairness and impartiality owed to an estate's successors when his law firm also represents creditors of that same, insolvent estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Berch, Judge
Yes, a personal representative in this situation breaches their fiduciary duty. A personal representative and their attorneys owe a fiduciary duty of fairness and impartiality to all 'interested persons' in an estate, which includes both successors (beneficiaries) and creditors. Simultaneously, as a partner in a law firm, the personal representative vicariously owes a duty of 'undivided loyalty' to the firm's clients, including the estate's creditors. In an insolvent estate where the interests of successors and creditors are directly adverse, these duties are irreconcilable; one cannot be fair and impartial to successors while giving undivided loyalty to creditor-clients. This conflict, which was not disclosed, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty owed to the successors. The court reversed the finding of ethical violations under ER 1.7 and 2.2, reasoning that those rules govern duties to 'clients,' and estate successors are not clients of the personal representative's attorney. However, it affirmed the breach of fiduciary duty based on the conflicting obligations.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the distinct duties owed by an attorney acting as a personal representative. It establishes that while estate successors are not 'clients' for the purpose of professional conduct rules regarding direct conflicts, a breach of statutory fiduciary duty can still occur. The ruling underscores the critical importance of conflict checks for law firms involved in estate administration. It creates a strong precedent that a law firm cannot simultaneously represent the personal representative of an insolvent estate and that estate's creditors, as the duty of impartiality to beneficiaries cannot be reconciled with the duty of loyalty to creditor-clients.
