• Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Sommerman, McCaffity, Quesada & Geisler L.L.P.

Personal Injury Attorneys | Sommerman, McCaffity, Quesada & Geisler, L.L.P.

Header Right

  • Español
  • English

TOLL FREE PHONE: (800) 900-5373
LOCAL PHONE: (214) 720-0720 – DALLAS

  • Home
  • Attorneys
    • Andrew B. Sommerman
    • George (Tex) Quesada
    • Sean McCaffity
    • Laura Benitez Geisler
    • Al Ellis, Of Counsel
    • Jody L. Rodenberg
    • James M. Kennedy
    • Rebecca Neumann
  • Practice Areas
    • Commercial Litigation
      • Breach of Contract
      • Unfair Competition
      • Shareholder Disputes
      • Officer & Director Liability
    • Catastrophic Injuries
      • Boating Accidents
      • Brain Injuries
      • Burns
      • Falls in the Workplace
      • Gas Line Explosions
      • Insurance Litigation
        • Automobile Policies
        • General Commercial Liability Policies
      • Premises Liability
      • Spinal Cord Injuries
      • Wrongful Death
        • Workplace Deaths
        • Oilfield Deaths
        • Truck Wreck Deaths
    • Oilfield and Construction Injuries
      • Oilfield Injuries
      • Oilfield Deaths
      • Construction Site Injuries
      • Trench Collapses
    • Truck Wrecks
      • 18-Wheeler Wrecks
      • Truck Driver Fatigue
      • Fraudulent Log Books
      • Overloaded Trucks
      • Speeding
      • Truck Driver Distractions
      • Ice Storms
    • Car Wrecks
      • Motorcycle Wrecks
      • Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Claims
      • Pedestrian Accidents
      • Bicycle Accidents
      • Injured by Distracted Driver
      • Injured by Drunk Driver
    • Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices
      • Drug Litigation
  • About Our Firm
    • Testimonials
    • Publications
  • Blog
  • Press
  • Contact Us
Call
Contact
Blog
  • Home
  • Attorneys
    • Andrew B. Sommerman
    • George (Tex) Quesada
    • Sean McCaffity
    • Al Ellis, Of Counsel
    • Laura Benitez Geisler
    • Jody L. Rodenberg
  • Practice Areas
    • Commercial Litigation
      • Breach of Contract
      • Unfair Competition
      • Shareholder Disputes
      • Officer & Director Liability
    • Catastrophic Injuries
      • Boating Accidents
      • Brain Injuries
      • Burns
      • Falls in the Workplace
      • Gas Line Explosions
      • Insurance Litigation
        • Automobile Policies
        • General Commercial Liability Policies
      • Premises Liability
      • Spinal Cord Injuries
      • Wrongful Death
        • Workplace Deaths
        • Oilfield Deaths
        • Truck Wreck Deaths
    • Oilfield and Construction Injuries
      • Oilfield Injuries
      • Oilfield Deaths
      • Construction Site Injuries
      • Trench Collapses
    • Truck Wrecks
      • 18-Wheeler Wrecks
      • Truck Driver Fatigue
      • Fraudulent Log Books
      • Overloaded Trucks
      • Speeding
      • Truck Driver Distractions
      • Ice Storms
    • Car Wrecks
      • Motorcycle Wrecks
      • Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Claims
      • Pedestrian Accidents
      • Bicycle Accidents
      • Injured by Distracted Driver
      • Injured by Drunk Driver
    • Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices
      • Drug Litigation
  • About Our Firm
    • Testimonials
    • Publications
  • Blog
  • Press
  • Contact Us

Posted In Publications

Ethics Update

Introduction

This paper discusses current issues in ethics.  It includes a discussion regarding ethical issues confronted by attorneys working as in-house counsel.  It also addresses the areas of wrongful disclosure, duty to disclose controlling authority, spoilation, ex parte temporary restraining orders, and attorney disqualification.

  1. Ethical Issues for In-House Counsel

As in-house legal departments continue to grow, the number of ethical concerns surrounding this area of practice also increases.  In-house lawyers face unique legal concerns as lawyers who are full-time employees of corporations.

  1. Attorneys’ Fees

In Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc.,754 S.W.2d 764 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, writ denied), the court of appeals held the award of attorneys fees for the work of in-house counsel did not violate public policy or the code of professional responsibility. In Campbell, Athey & Zukowski v. Thomasson, 863 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1989), the Fifth Circuit accepted the reasoning in Tesoro, and held the same applied to a law firm represented by one of its own attorneys.

  1. Insurance Staff Attorneys

In Am. Home Assur. Co., Inc. v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, 121 S.W.3d 831 (Tex.App.—Eastland 2003, pet. granted), liability insurers sought a declaratory judgment against the state’s unauthorized practice of law committee to determine that the use of staff attorneys to represent insured was not the unauthorized practice of law.  The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the committee and insurers appealed.

On appeal the committee contended the use of staff attorneys violated the Texas rules of professional responsibility for three reasons: “(1) no attorney can serve two masters; (2) the insurance companies’ right to control and direct staff counsel violates the lawyer’s professional code of ethics because he cannot exercise his independent judgment; and (3) therefore, the use of staff counsel should be prohibited because the employee-lawyer is subject to an irreconcilable conflict between his employer and the insured.” Id. at 835-36.

The court of appeals reversed, holding the staff attorney’s status as an employee did not create an irreconcilable conflict.  It determined the question of whether the staff attorneys served one or two masters spoke only to ethical conflicts, not to whether the corporation was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law (the issue in the case).

It further held the insurance companies were not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  It reached this conclusion although corporations may not practice law in the state of Texas, and the staff attorneys as agents of the insurance corporations practicing law on behalf of the insured.

See also, Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 155 S.W.3d 590 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2004, reh’g overr.).

  1. Attorney-Client Privilege

In re Valero Energy Corp., involved an action for breach of fiduciary duty involving a joint venture.  Valero claimed the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the company to produce documents prepared by in house counsel that were protected by attorney-client privilege.  The Court explained Valero and its fellow joint venturer were not joint clients.  Therefore, Valero was “entitled to seek confidential legal advice from its in-house attorneys concerning its duties as pipeline operator, even though it owed a fiduciary duty to the joint venture.”  Id. at 459.

III.       Wrongful Disclosure

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.3 provides that a party may withhold privileged material or information which is otherwise responsive to discovery requests provided it follows the steps for withholding laid out by subsection (a) of the rule.  Subsection (d) of the rule, also known as the “snap-back provision,” applies when a party inadvertently produces privileged documents to an opposing party.  Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.3(d); Warrantech Corp. v. Computer Adapters Servs., 134 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.).  It allows a party to snap-back materials inadvertently produced within ten days after the producing party discovers the production was made.  Comments on the rule explain that the rule focuses on the intent to waive the privilege rather than the intent to produce the material or information.  Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.3(d) cmt. 4.

  1. Disclosure to Testifying Experts

In re Christus Spohn Hosp. Kleberg, 222 S.W.3d 434 (Tex. 2007), involved a medical malpractice action where the defendant hospital sought to recover privileged documents mistakenly provided to their designated testifying expert witness.  Thus, the court was required to examine the interrelation between the snap-back provision and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.3(e)(6), which provides that all material provided to a testifying expert must be produced.  The court concluded: “Rules 192.3(e)(6) and 192.5(c)(1) prevail over Rule 193.3(d)’s snap-back provision so long as the expert intends to testify at trial despite the inadvertent document production.”  Accordingly, once a testifying expert receives privileged documents, those documents may not be retrieved if the party who designated the expert continues to rely upon that designation for trial.

  1. Attorney Disqualification

In In re Parnham, —S.W.3.d—, 2006 WL 2690306 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 21, 2006, no pet.), a client sought a writ of mandamus to vacate the trial court’s order sanctioning his attorneys with disqualification for attempting to copy and examined privileged documents inadvertently disclosed by opposing counsel.  Specifically, counsel for the defendant in the underlying action arrived to review documents responsive to a limited set of discovery requests.  Staff for the producing party inadvertently left the entire litigation file in the room where the review took place.  After reviewing the file and taking notes, counsel for the defendant notified the producing party’s staff of the copies they wished to order as was previously arranged.  When the documents came back from the copy company the next day, counsel for the producing party realized opposing counsel had ordered his entire attorney-client correspondence file, as well as other privileged material, copied.  He did not forward the documents to opposing counsel and immediately invoked privilege.

The parties attempted to reach an agreement regarding the use of the privileged information, but were unsuccessful.  As a result, the producing party sought disqualification, which the trial court granted.  The Court explained Rule 193.3 does not specifically restrict the use of the information, but acknowledged the information is privileged from use once the privilege is asserted.  It held that “rule 193.3 does not provide authority for disqualification of counsel who review inadvertently disclosed materials during the course of discovery.”

  1. Waiver

In re JDN Real Estate-McKinney L.P., 211 S.W.3d 907 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2006, mandamus denied) involved a city-initiated condemnation action to acquire property through eminent domain.  During the course of discovery the producing party disclosed over a hundred documents, including correspondence with attorneys handling a related matter.  After receiving the documents, the requesting party discussed them with the attorneys in the related matter and producing counsel, as well as, referred to some of the documents in a hearing where the producing party was present.

The producing party only attempted to snap-back the materials when the receiving party attached one as evidence in support of its motion to dismiss four months later.  The trial court allowed the producing party to snap back the documents.  The receiving party moved for mandamus on grounds of waiver by undue delay, disclosure to a third party, the offensive use doctrine, and the crime-fraud exception.

Waiver via undue delay

The court of appeals recognized that the producing party did a poor job of screening documents.  It noted rule 193.3 focuses on the intent to waive privilege, and that a party who fails to diligently screen documents before producing them does not waive privilege.  It then refused to find waiver based on undue delay explaining the moving party’s evidence only established poor screening and did not evidence an intent to waive privilege.

Waiver via disclosure to third-parties

The court of appeals further held disclosure to the third party attorneys in the related matter did not waive privilege.  It explained the attorney-client privilege is not waived if the communication is shared with a third person who has a common legal interest with respect to the subject of the communication. See In re Auclair, 961 F.2d 65, 69 (5th Cir. 1992).

Waiver via offensive-use doctrine

The offensive-use doctrine waives privilege when the party requesting discovery establishes: (1) the party asserting the privilege seeks affirmative relief; (2) the privileged material is such that, if believed by the trier of fact, in all probability would be outcome determinative; and (3) disclosure of the material is the only way the requesting party may obtain the evidence.  Republic Ins. Co. v. Davis, 856 S.W.2d 158, 163 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding); see also, Alford v. Bryant, 137 S.W.3d 916, 921 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied).  This method of waiver applies to confidential, attorney-client communications.  Republic Ins., 856 S.W.2d at 164; see Alford, 137 S.W.3d at 921.

In JDN the reviewing court found the requesting party failed to produce any evidence the information could not be obtained from another source.  211 S.W.3d at 923.  Consequently, it held the trial court did not abuse discretion by determining the producing party did not waive the ability to assert privilege pursuant to the offensive-use doctrine.  Id.

Crime-Fraud Exception

Once a party establishes the applicability of a privilege, the burden shifts to the requesting party to establish an exception to privilege.  Marathon Oil Co. v. Moye, 893 S.W.2d 585 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1994, no writ).  Texas Rule of Evidence 503 provides there is not a privilege if the services of the attorney were sought or obtained to enable or aid a person to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud.  Tex. R. Evid. 503(d)(1).  In order to apply the exception, the moving party must establish a prima facie case of contemplated fraud, and that there is a relationship between the requested document and the prima facie proof offered.  Granada Corp. v. First Court of Appeals, 844 S.W.2d 223, 227 (Tex. 1992).

The requesting party in JDN only offered general assertions alleging the elements of the crime-fraud exception were satisfied.  211 S.W.3d at 924-25.  The court of appeals disagreed and held the trial court did not abuse its discretion on those grounds.

  1. Disclosure of Controlling Authority

Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 3.03(a)(4), governing candor to the tribunal provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly “fail to disclose to the tribunal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.”  Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof’l Conduct 3.03(a)(4).  “Legal argument based on a knowingly false representation of law constitutes dishonesty to the tribunal.”  In re Colonial Pipeline Co., Texaco Inc., 960 S.W.2d 272, 273 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1997, no writ).

Download and read the entire publication here.


Contact the Dallas Personal Injury Attorneys at Sommerman, McCaffity, Quesada & Geisler, L.L.P.

Schedule a complimentary initial consultation with a member of our legal team.

(214) 720-0720

Dallas

(800) 900-5373

Toll Free

Primary Sidebar

Contact An Attorney

Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Catastrophic Injuries
  • Oilfield & Construction Injuries
  • Truck Wrecks
  • Car Wrecks
  • Pharmaceuticals & Medical Devices

Client Testimonials

I would always suggest Sommerman, McCaffity, Quesada & Geisler

My insurance company refused to cover my injuries in an accident where they insured both parties. The other party was unquestionably liable and but did not have sufficient coverage, so damages should have been paid under my uninsured/underinsured coverage. Even though I had paid for uninsured/underinsured coverage for many years, my insurance company refused to pay. Andy Sommerman and his staff at Sommerman, McCaffity, Quesada & Geisler won the case in a jury trial even though there were three times as many attorneys and support on the opposing side. I would always suggest Sommerman, McCaffity, Quesada & Geisler if you need an attorney that is not intimidated by multi-billion dollar insurance companies.

- Roger B.
After Suffering a Hit and Run

After suffering a hit and run, I turned to Sommerman, McCaffity, Quesada & Geisler for some much-needed legal assistance. The team at Sommerman, McCaffity, Quesada & Geisler worked fastidiously for three years to resolve my complex legal matter, and kept me informed throughout the whole process. In the end, Andy Sommerman was successful in having the truck owner’s insurance pay the bills.

- SUE W.
I Refer Them to Sommerman, McCaffity, Quesada & Geisler Without Reservation

Our firm refers all of our personal injury cases to Sommerman, McCaffity, Quesada & Geisler. The clients we refer are treated professionally and are very pleased with the settlement proceeds they receive. Anytime I receive a call regarding a personal injury case, I refer them to Sommerman, McCaffity, Quesada & Geisler without reservation – I know they will be in good hands.

- SCOTTIE A.

Search

Recent Posts

  • Jody Rodenberg Again Named as a Texas Rising Star 
  • Four Firm Attorneys Honored Among Nation’s Top 500 Lawyers for Plaintiffs in Litigation
  • Jody Rodenberg Again Recognized in D Magazine’s Best Lawyers Under 40 List
  • Sommerman, McCaffity, Quesada & Geisler Again Named Among State’s Best Law Firms by Prestigious Legal Guide  
  • Sommerman, McCaffity, Quesada & Geisler Attorneys Earn Recent Legal Industry Honors

Recent Comments

    Archives

    • March 2023
    • December 2022
    • November 2022
    • September 2022
    • March 2021
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • April 2019
    • February 2018
    • August 2017
    • June 2017
    • May 2017
    • May 2016
    • December 2015
    • July 2015
    • December 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • August 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • May 2011
    • February 2010
    • March 2009
    • August 2008
    • January 2008
    • November 2006
    • January 2003

    Categories

    • Announcements
    • Apartamento y Casa Incendios
    • Apartment and House Fires
    • Appliance Fires
    • Car Accidents
    • Defamation
    • Distracted Driving
    • DWI Accident Attorneys
    • Internet Safety
    • Los Incendios Appliance
    • Oilfield Injuries
    • Personal Injury
    • Personal Injury Lawyers
    • Press
    • Products Liability
    • Publications
    • Slip and Falls
    • Uncategorized
    • Workplace Injury
    • Wrongful Death
    • Yaz/Yasmin Litigation

    Meta

    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.org

    Footer

    Recent Posts

    View Recent Posts

    Jody Rodenberg Again Named as a Texas Rising Star 

    For the sixth consecutive year, our partner Jody Rodenberg is being recognized on the list of Texas … [Read More...] about Jody Rodenberg Again Named as a Texas Rising Star 

    Four Firm Attorneys Honored Among Nation’s Top 500 Lawyers for Plaintiffs in Litigation

    Four partners of the firm have been named to the list of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers … [Read More...] about Four Firm Attorneys Honored Among Nation’s Top 500 Lawyers for Plaintiffs in Litigation

    Sommerman, McCaffity, Quesada & Geisler, L.L.P.

    3811 Turtle Creek Blvd
    Suite 1400
    Dallas, TX 75219-4492

    Toll Free Phone : (800) 900-5373

    Local Phone: (214) 720-0720 – Dallas

    Email

    GET DIRECTIONS

    Copyright © 2019 Sommerman, McCaffity, Quesada & Geisler, L.L.P. | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter