In Macias v. Gomez, a client sued his attorney for breach of fiduciary duty arising from the attorney’s trust later suing the client. No. 13-14-00017-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12967 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi December 29, 2015, no pet. history). The client paid the attorney by transferring a one percent interest in a business to the attorney’s trust. The client then learned that the attorney may have to engage in conduct that negatively affected the other owners of the business. The attorney then withdrew from representing the client, and the client signed a waiver-of-conflict-of-interest document that stated:

As per our discussion, I have been explained by your firm that you will continue with your representation of [my fellow Border Furniture business owners] in this matter and I have agreed to waive any conflict of interest that may exist with you and your firm in the matter including but not limited to any conflict that might arise if you or your clients file suit against me or any of my entities.

 After the client signed the waiver, the attorney’s trust sued the client alleging claims of breach of contract, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty in relation to the business. The client then sued the attorney for breach of fiduciary duty in a separate proceeding. The trial court entered summary judgment for the defendant/attorney.

 On appeal the client first claimed that the waiver was not enforceable because it was not acquired prior to the attorney representing the client. The client claimed that if the attorney knew prior to representing the client that a conflict of interest existed, then the attorney breached his fiduciary duty by representing the client without disclosing the conflict or obtaining the waiver. The court affirmed the summary judgment on this issue because no evidence created a fact issue that the attorney new of the conflict before beginning the representation.

 The client also argued that the attorney breached a fiduciary duty by acquiring the waiver under a false pretense, i.e., the attorney allegedly told the client, prior to signing the waiver, that he would not sue him or represent anyone in a suit against him. The court rejected this argument, however, because the waiver expressly stated that the attorney may sue the client in the future. The court of appeals affirmed the summary judgment for the attorney.

Tags: attorney, conflict of interest, waiver
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of David Fowler Johnson David Fowler Johnson

[email protected]
817.420.8223

David maintains an active trial and appellate practice and has consistently worked on financial institution litigation matters throughout his career. David is the primary author of the The Fiduciary Litigator blog, which reports on legal cases and issues impacting the fiduciary…

[email protected]
817.420.8223

David maintains an active trial and appellate practice and has consistently worked on financial institution litigation matters throughout his career. David is the primary author of the The Fiduciary Litigator blog, which reports on legal cases and issues impacting the fiduciary field in Texas. Read More

David’s financial institution experience includes (but is not limited to): breach of contract, foreclosure litigation, lender liability, receivership and injunction remedies upon default, non-recourse and other real estate lending, class action, RICO actions, usury, various tort causes of action, breach of fiduciary duty claims, and preference and other related claims raised by receivers.

David also has experience in estate and trust disputes including will contests, mental competency issues, undue influence, trust modification/clarification, breach of fiduciary duty and related claims, and accountings. David’s recent trial experience includes:

  • Representing a bank in federal class action suit where trust beneficiaries challenged whether the bank was the authorized trustee of over 220 trusts;
  • Representing a bank in state court regarding claims that it mismanaged oil and gas assets;
  • Representing a bank who filed suit in probate court to modify three trusts to remove a charitable beneficiary that had substantially changed operations;
  • Represented an individual executor of an estate against claims raised by a beneficiary for breach of fiduciary duty and an accounting; and
  • Represented an individual trustee against claims raised by a beneficiary for breach of fiduciary duty, mental competence of the settlor, and undue influence.

David is one of twenty attorneys in the state (of the 84,000 licensed) that has the triple Board Certification in Civil Trial Law, Civil Appellate and Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.

Additionally, David is a member of the Civil Trial Law Commission of the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. This commission writes and grades the exam for new applicants for civil trial law certification.

David maintains an active appellate practice, which includes:

  • Appeals from final judgments after pre-trial orders such as summary judgments or after jury trials;
  • Interlocutory appeals dealing with temporary injunctions, arbitration, special appearances, sealing the record, and receiverships;
  • Original proceedings such as seeking and defending against mandamus relief; and
  • Seeking emergency relief staying trial court’s orders pending appeal or mandamus.

For example, David was the lead appellate lawyer in the Texas Supreme Court in In re Weekley Homes, LP, 295 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. 2009). The Court issued a ground-breaking opinion in favor of David’s client regarding the standards that a trial court should follow in ordering the production of computers in discovery.

David previously taught Appellate Advocacy at Texas Wesleyan University School of Law located in Fort Worth. David is licensed and has practiced in the U.S. Supreme Court; the Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Federal Circuits; the Federal District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Texas; the Texas Supreme Court and various Texas intermediate appellate courts. David also served as an adjunct professor at Baylor University Law School, where he taught products liability and portions of health law. He has authored many legal articles and spoken at numerous legal education courses on both trial and appellate issues. His articles have been cited as authority by the Texas Supreme Court (twice) and the Texas Courts of Appeals located in Waco, Texarkana, Beaumont, Tyler and Houston (Fourteenth District), and a federal district court in Pennsylvania. David’s articles also have been cited by McDonald and Carlson in their Texas Civil Practice treatise, William v. Dorsaneo in the Texas Litigation Guide, and various authors in the Baylor Law Review, St. Mary’s Law Journal, South Texas Law Review and Tennessee Law Review.

Representative Experience

  • Civil Litigation and Appellate Law
Read more about David Fowler JohnsonDavid's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Related Posts
Court Holds That Party Waived Appeal By Not Timely Appealing An Order Admitting A Will To Probate
February 11, 2025
Court Reversed A Judgment Based On A No-Contest Clause Because After Nonsuiting The Will Contest Pleading, The Trial Court Did Not Have Jurisdiction Over The Defensive Allegations Concerning The Clause
February 11, 2025
Court Holds That Mental Competence Claims Regarding The Execution Of Documents Containing Arbitration Clauses Should Be Determined In Arbitration
January 13, 2025