I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - I A- 0 0 7 6 8 - S CT BAK ER D ON

ELSON BEA RM

AN CALD W

ELL & BERKOW

I TZ , P. C. AND W

I LL I AM N. REED
v. S AM S EAY D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 14/ 2008 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. TOM I E T. GR EEN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN TS: M I CH AEL W
. ULM ER J AM ES J OSE P H CRONGEYER, J R. J AM E S M AT T HE W T YR ONE J OH N P. SNEED RE UB E N V. ANDE RS ON F RED L
. BANKS, J R. AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : P HI L L I P J
. BR OOKI NS J OHN LE ONA RD W ALKER, J R. NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 06/ 10/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 8 - I A- 0 0 9 9 9 - S CT W I L L I AM N. RE

ED AN D BAK ER DONEL S ON BEARMAN

CAL DW

ELL & BERKOW

I TZ , P. C.
v. S AM S EAY D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 27/ 2008 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. TOM I E T. GR EEN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT

### 2

ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN TS: J OH N P. SNEED R E X M
. S H A N N O N , III RE UB E N V. ANDE RS ON F RED L
. BANKS, J R. AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : P HI L L I P J
. BR OOKI NS J OHN LE ONA RD W ALKER, J R. NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER DI S P OS I T I ON: AF F I RMED I N P AR T ; RE VE RS E D AND R E M A N D E D I N PA R T - 06/ 10/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. S am S ea y an d W i l l i am R eed b egan a l i fel on g fr i end shi p at age ei gh t . In Jan u ary 2003, f ol l ow i ng t erm i nat i on f

r om hi s empl oym entw i th B ancorpSout h, Sam al l eges that R ee d , a n a tto rne y an d then -pre side n t and ch ief op era ti n g o ffi ce r (“C O O ”) o f B ak er, D onel s on, B earm an, C al dw el l & B er ko w i t z, P. C
. ( “B akerD onel s on”) , undert ook l egal
re p re se n tatio n o f S a m in th e e n su in g c o n flict. R e e d a c k n o w led g e s th a t S a m “ a sk e d m e to l ook ats om e s peci f

i c [ l egal ] i s s ues . . . . ” I n l at e O ct oberorear l y N ovember2003, R eed part i ci pat ed i n an ext r amar i t al af f ai rw i th Sam ’ s then- w i f e, R ebec ca Sea y. I n J anuary 2004, Sam f i l ed a compl ai nta gai ns tBancorpSout h us i ng otherc ouns el
. W hi l e Sam concedes t hat R e e d w a s n e v e r c o u n se l o f re c o rd in th e c a se , h e m a in tain s th a t R e e d a g re e d to a d v ise h im “behi nd the s cene s . . . . ” A ccor di ng t o Sam , R eed pr ovi ded l egal advi ce thr ough O ct ober 26, 2004. R eed’ s af

f ai rw i th R ebec ca e nded betw een A ugus tand O ct ober2004. ¶2. T he dat e w hen S am l earned of t he af f ai r i s di s put ed. I n depos i t i on t es t i m ony, Sam
s w ear s the date w as A ugus t2, 2004. Subse quent l y, Sam w entt o R eed’ s of f i ce a nd thr eat ened s ui ti f

hi s demand f

or$3 m i l l i on f

r om R eed a nd B akerD onel s on w as notm et

### Sam and Re ed gr ew up t ogether , we refrate rni ty brother s at Ole Mis s, and Ree d was 1 

### a pallb earer at th e funeral for Sam’s moth er. W hen Sam m arr i ed R ebec ca on J ul y 20, 1984, R eed a nd hi s w i f

e att ended. 

### 3 w i thi n tw o w eeks
. T her e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d thatanyone a tB akerD onel s on ot her than R eed w as aw ar e of the af f ai rp ri or t o S am ’ s demand i n N ovember2004. W hen the demand w as notm et , S am f i l ed sui ti n the C i r cui tC our tof H i nds C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi
. T he compl ai nti ncl uded s epar at e count s of negl i genti nf

l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s , al i enat i on of af f ect i ons , and br eac h of

f i duci ary duty as t o R eed, and count s of br eac h of

f i duci ary duty, empow erm ent , negl i gentf ai l ur e t o s upervi s e, and vi car i ous l i abi l i ty as t o B akerD onel s on. S u b seq u en tl y , the c ir cu itco u rte n tered o rde rs de n y ing R ee d ’s M o ti o n for P arti al S u m m ary J udgm entand B akerD onel s on’ s M ot i on f orSum m ary J udgm ent . Fr om thos e rul i ngs p r o c e e d s p a r to f

th i s c o n s o l i d a t e d i n t e r l o c u t o ry a p p e a l
. T h e o th e rp a r t s p e r t a i n t o t wo admi s s i bi l i ty rul i ngs of

the ci r cui tcour t , bot h adver s e t o R eed; and the ci r cui tcourt ’ s deni al of R eed a nd B akerD onel s on’ s M ot i on t o C om pel Physi cal and M ent al E xami nat i on. FACTS ¶ 3
. S a m a n d R e e d w e re lifelo n g frie n d s. A c c o rd in g to S a m , R e e d w a s o n e o f h is “ g o -to 1 guys that , day orni ght , w heneve ryourox w as i n the di t ch, that ’ s w ho y ou cal l ed. ” Sam not ed thathe “ha d no r es ervat i on . . . di s cus s i ng anythi ng w i th [ R eed, ] ” and that , l i kew i s e, R e e d h a d “ a lw a y s b e e n v e ry . . . o p e n w ith m e . . . .”T he agre ementpr ovi ded f oran annua l s al ary of $185, 000 and al s o cont ai ned 2 anti pir acy an d n on com peti t i on cov enan t s. 

### Sam ’s adm is si on to t

he Be tt y Ford Clinic w as at theins is te nceof Re ed, am ong 3 

### others. D urin g theperiod of thi s l eave of

abs enc e f

rom Banc orpSouth, Sam a ll ege s Re ed was rep resentin g h im. Pri or t o being af

fi li at ed wi th Baker

Donels on, Ree d had provide d the fol lowing fr ee 4 

### le galse rvi ces for Sam : ( 1) the e xec uti on of gi ft s f rom Sam ’s mot

her to Sam and his si st er in 1987; (2) a powe r of

attor ney for Sam’ s m othe r in 1989; and (3) in 1991, he r epr es ent ed Sam an d rev ieweda no nco mpete co ntract o f on e of S am’s former emp loy ees. 4 ¶4
. Sam w as a vi ce- pr es i de nta nd d i r e c t oro f Pi t t man, Se a y & Turne rI ns ur ance and B o n d in g , In c . O n O c to b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 0 , S a m a n d h is p a rtn e rs s o ld th e ir a g e n c y to B ancorpSouth, and Sam ent ered i nto a f i ve- yearempl oym entagr eementw i th B ancorpSouth. 2 ¶5. I n Sep t em ber 20 01 , S am w as diagno sed w i th “s i tuat i onal depr es s i on, ” w hi ch he
r el at ed t o hi s w or k envi r onm entatB ancorpSout h. Sam t es t i f i ed that“the doct or s pr es cr i bed
s e v e r a l a n t i d e p r e s s a n t s th a ta l l h a d s e x u a l s i d e e f f e c t s , ma k i n g me i mp o t e n ta n d g a v e me
er ect i l e dys f

unct i on. ” I n an ef

f or tt o s el f

- m edi cat e, Sam began a bus i ng alcohol and w as
s ubs equent l y admi t t ed t o t he B etty For d C l i ni c f r om February 2002 t o A pr i l 2002. 3 ¶6. Sam ’ s em pl oym enti s s ues w i th B ancorpSouth per s i s t ed and, i n earl y Januar y 2003, Sam t es t i f

i ed thatR eed t ol d hi m “that , ‘ [ w ] e, ’ m eani ng B akerD onel s on , ‘w i l l m ake [B a n c o rp S o u th ’s] life m ise ra b le if th e y ter m in a te y o u .’” S p e c ifica lly , S a m tes tified th a t: [ i ] tw as [ R eed] , m ys el f

and hi s w i f

e and m y w i f

e, and w e had di s cus s ed .
. . the c a se o v e r d in n e r. A n d th e n I ta lk e d to h im th a t n ig h t an d
. . . h e sa id , “W e ’ll h a n d le th is fo r y o u a n d w e w ill m a k e B a n c o rp S o u th ’s life m ise ra b le. I w ill guar ant ee you that
. A nd i tw i l l be atno char ge. ”[ ] 4

### Sam’s affid avit p rov ides th at “[a]fter [Reed ] b ec am e anattorn ey, I u sed mybest 5 

### efforts to ref

er pros pec tive c li ent s t o him and hi s l aw f

ir m. ” In 2002, Re ed ha d a “ cl ie nt deve lopm ent

lunc h” wi th Sam. Acc ording to Be n Adam s, thechi ef exe cutiveoff

ic er of Bake r Done ls on, “ I unde rs tand that [ Sam ] did ref er cl ie nts t o [ Ree d]
. Ican’t

te llyou to what ext ent the y re sulte d in m eaningf ul c li ent rel ations hips . . . , but I do know ther e wa s a pri or relation ship andSam d id refer clients to [R eed].” 5 Ac c o r d i n g t o S a m, th i s o f f e ro f f r e e s e r v i c e s wa s “ a r e s u l to f th e r e c i p r o c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p we had had f

oryear s , of

a l l the bus i nes s I had s entoverther e . . . and had c ul t i vat ed hi s car eer
o v e r t h e y e a rs .” 5 ¶7. O n J anuary 13, 2003, Sam w as decl ared t otal l y and p ermanent l y di s abl ed by the Soci al Secur i ty A dm i ni s tr at i on. T hats am e day, S am w as t erm i nat ed by B ancorpSout h. Sam ’ s seve r ance package i ncl uded one ye ar ’ s s al ary. A ccor di ng t o Sam , hi s di s abi l i ty s t atus

“ h a d to d o w ith m e n ta l illn e s s , n o th in g to d o w ith a lc o h o l.” ¶8
. Fol l ow i ng his ter m i nati on , S am u nd er s t ood t hatR eed c om m ence d “of f i ci al
r epr es ent at i on” of

hi m on J anuary 17, 2003. R eed a dm i t s thatSam “as ked me t o l ook at
s om e s peci f

i c [ l e ga l ] i s s ue s . . . . ” Rega r di ng h i s J a nu a ry 17 , 2 00 3, memo t o Sam, R eed
s t at ed thathe: lo o k e d a t . . . [S a m ’s] c o n tra c t, . . . th e s c o p e o f th e n o n -c o m p e te, it w a s p re tty br oad.
. . . A nd .
. . I s ai d, “Y ou don’ tw ant t o be i nvol ved i n any ki nd of d isp u te o v e r th is w h ile th e y ’re p a y in g y o u a s e v e ra n c e . B u t if y o u e v e n tu a lly geti nto l i t i gat i on w i th them and t hey cont end thatyou vi ol at ed yournonc o m p e te , a m a te ri a l b re a c h o f t h e c o n tr a c t b y th e m m ig h t b e a d e fe n s e to th a t.” S u b s e q u e n tly , R e e d “ o p e n e d a p ro b o n o fi le ” o n th e “ n o n -c o m p e te a n ti- p ir a c y p ro v is io n [s ]” i n Seay’ s empl oym entagr eementw i th B ancorpSout h. O n M ar ch 4, 2003, Reed s enta l ett er
o n B a k e r D o n e ls o n le tterh e a d to c o u n se l fo r B a n c o rp S o u th , w h ich p ro v id e d th a t “ [ w] e
r epr es ent

Sam Seay [,] ” a n d th a t “[w ]hile M r. S e a y h a s c o m p lied an d w ill co n tin u e to c o m p ly

### Acc ording to Sam, Rebe cc a a dmi tt ed t o him that Re ed ha d ma de unwant ed s exua l 6 

### advance s toward her

on Oct ober

18, 2003; that

Re ed and Rebe cc a had se xualrel ations at t he Seay’s homeon Dec em

ber 25, 2003, whi leSam wa s “ as le ep unde r m edi cati on[; ] ” and that Ree d and Rebec ca

had s exua l rel ations in t he Seays’ hote l room in Dal la s on J anuary 1, 2004. This p oint

i s c or r ob orat e d byR ebe c c a . Li ke wi s e , a c c ordingt o Rebe c c a , s he does 7 

### no t know of anything that Bake r Donel son did to as si st Re ed in purs uing and enga ging in an a ff air wi th he r. 6 w i th the appl i cabl e t erm s of hi s c ontr actw i th youri ns t i tut i on, yourchar act er i zat i ons of the
r es tr i ct i ons i m pos ed by thatcontr actar e i ncorr ect . A ny f utur e comm uni cat i ons r egar di ng t he contr acts houl d be di r ect ed t o my at t ent i on. ” ( E m phas i s added. ) R eed a cknow l edged that he s ubs equent l y e- m ai l ed counse l f orB ancorpSout h “es s ent i al l y [ s t at i ng] , ‘ Sam Seay has been tryi ng t o s peak t o s om eone a bouthi s benef i t s i ncl udi ng C O B R A
. W oul d s om eone p l e a s e c a l l h i m. ’ ” Ad d i t i o n a l l y , Re e d a d mi t t e d th a tS a m: b ro u g h t s o m e m e d ic a l r e c o rd s to o u r o ff ic e to b e fa x e d to s o m e o n e . M y sec retary fa x ed them , an d for so m e p eriod o f ti m e [th e m ed ical reco rds] w ere i n hi s f i l e bec aus e he c oul dn’ tkeep up w i th anythi ng. H e k eptas ki ng f or c o p ie s o f t h e s a m e m a te r ia ls . S o [R e e d ’s s e c re ta ry ] st u c k th e m in th e fi le . I di dn’ tr ead them .
. . . A nd I don’ tr eca l l havi ng any f i nanci al i nf

or m at i on. ¶ 9
. In O c to b e r 2 0 0 3 , R e e d a n d R e b e c c a e n g a g e d in w h a t R e e d re fe rre d to a s “ a lco h o lr el at ed ki s s i ng” i n R os emar y B eac h, Fl or i da. I ti s undi s put ed t hat R eed and R ebec ca
comm ence d an af

f ai ri n ei therl at e O ct oberorear l y N ovember2003, and i tended be t w een A ugus tand O ct ober 2004. D ur i ng the cour s e of the af f ai r , R eed de ni ed havi ng any 6
c o n v e rsa tio n s w ith R e b e c c a a b o u t m a tters in v o lv in g S a m ’s le g a l d isp u te w ith B a n c o rp S o u th
. A c c o rd in g to R e e d , th e a ff a irw a s “ p u re ly p e rs o n a l.” 7 ¶1 0. O n D ece m ber9, 2003, R eed e - mai l e d c ou ns e l f orBan c orpSout h, as “Sam w as
a p p a re n tly o w e d a n e x p e n se re im b u rse m e n t ch e c k a n d h a d n o t g o tten it an d a sk e d m e to

### Acc ording to t he c ompl aint, “[ a] s a

direc t and proxi materes ult of the br ea ch of 8 

### contra ct ualobli gations and m is conduc t of [Bancor pSouth]
. . . , [Sam] be gan s uff ering head aches andepisod es of major depressio n, first diagn osedby [Sam’s] family p hy sician in Sep tember, 2 00 1.” Acc ording to Sam, Ree d inf orm ed hi m that, whilehe would not sueBanc orpSouth, 9 

### “he w ou ld . . . continu e to advise me and wo rk with
. . . wh oev er I selected as th e perso n to file th e p apers again st th e b ank , th at h e w ou ld b e op erating as a counsel, ev en o ffered to sit at the . . . tab le withus . . . inf ro nt o f the ju dg e.” Reedden ied tellin g S am that h e wo uld discretelycounsel an d advise h im. 7 chec k on i t . ” O n J anuary 6, 2004, Reed e
- m ai l ed the human r es our ces depart m entof couns el f orB ancorpSout h that“‘ [ m]y cl i ent

[ Sam ] has been a t t empt i ng t o s peak t o you abouts ever al im p o rta n t in su ra n c e a n d tax issu e s. I w o u ld a p p re c iate y o u r c a lli n g h im
. . . . ’” (E m p h a sis added. ) R eed a l s o acknow l edged thathe “m etw i th [ Sam ’ s att orney, J ohn G r i f f i n J ones ] at
s om e poi ntbef

or e he f i l ed the l aw s ui ton behal f of [ Sam ] and t ol d hi m thatI di dn’ tbel i eve [S a m ] ha d a c la im .” R e e d m a in tain s th a t h e d id n o t re p re se n t S a m in th e B a n c o rp S o u th law su it. A c c o rd in g to R e e d , “I to ld S a m fro m d a y o n e th a t if [it] e n d e d u p in lit ig a tio n w ith B an co rpS o u th tha t w e w o u ld n o t b e inv o lved [, ] ” a n d “tha t’ s w h y h e h ir ed an o ther law y er, in a d d itio n to th e fa c t th a t I to ld h im th a t h e d id n ’t h a v e a c la im .” ¶1 1. O n J anuary 12, 2004, J on e s f i l e d Se a y’ s c ompl a i nta ga i ns tB ancorpSout h. T he
c o m p lain t in c lu d e d c o u n ts o f b re a c h o f c o n tra c t; t o rtio u s o r b a d -fa ith b re a c h o f c o n tra c t;
w r ongf ul di s char ge; t erm i nat i on i n vi ol at i on of publ i c pol i cy; m i sr epr es ent at i on and equi t abl e es t oppel ; i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s ; and br eac h of f i duci ary dut i es and a nonde r i vat i ve s har ehol der ’ s c l ai m . W hi l e Sam c oncede s thatReed w as ne vercouns el 8 of r ecor d i n the B ancorpSout h cas e, he adde d thatReed ha d “s ai d he coul d notkeep a hi gh p rofil e in th e c ase , b u t he c o u ld sitb eh ind the s ce n es a n d ad v ise us as p art of the team . ” In 9

### Ree d di d not rec al l communi cating with Jone s a bout t he order in whi ch deposi ti ons 10 

### of the Bancor

pSouth repr es ent ative s s hould betaken. R eed pr ovi ded that“[ o] n the i ni t i al copy of th[ e] [ depos i t i on] tr ans cr i ptI w as not 11 liste d a s m a k in g a n a p p e a ra n c e fo r [S a m ]. S a m . . . w e n t b a c k a n d c h a n g e d th a t an d h a d it a d d e d a ft e r e v e n h e a d m its k n o w in g a b o u t th e a ff a ir .” Sam a cknow l edged thathe r eques t ed a change t o the appe ar ance page i n February or M ar ch 2005 bec aus e “Reed w as ther e r epr es ent i ng m e. H e had m ade s ever al phone ca l l s t he ni gh tb e f or e , c oa c hi ng me f

orthe d e po s i t i on a nd
. . . h e a l s o di s c us s e d thi ng s d ur i ng t he b re a k , co a c h in g m e d u rin g th e d e p o sitio n . I th o u g h t it w a s o n ly rig h t th a t h is n a m e sh o u ld b e in c lu d e d .” 

### Acc ording to Sam , he me t with an att orne y on August 4, 2004, a ft er

l earning of

the 12 

### af fa ir , and she“a dvis ed m e t o ar range a conf ront ation wi th f

ri ends pre se nt and to have the con frontation/interv entio n v ideo tapedandrecord ed.” A tr ans crip t

of thec on f r ont at i oni s c ont a i ne d w i thin thes up pl e m e nt a lr e c ord. On app eal, the admissibility o f the D VD record ing is at issue. See Issue III, infra
. 8 thatcapa ci ty, Sam s t at ed thatReed ha d “ r evi ew ed the depos i t i on s chedul e thatw e pl anned
a n d to ta lly c h a n g e d it u p [,] ” in sis tin g th a t “th e lo w e r o ffic e rs o u g h t to b e q u e stio n e d first. M r . J ones had them sche dul ed t o be ques t i oned l as t . ” I n Sept emberorO ct ober2004, R eed 10 att ended Sam ’ s de pos i t i on. Sam m ai nt ai ned thatR eed “ w as s ervi ng as m y att orney[ , ] ” and th a t d u r in g a b r e a k i n th e d e p o s itio n , R e e d “ to ld m e to k e e p m y a n s w e rs . . . b ri e fe r . . . .” A ccor di ng t o R eed, how ever , he w entt o the depos i t i on onl y “bec aus e [ Sam ] as ked m e t o go
as a f r i end and I s atther e and di d notpart i ci pat e. ” R eed mai nt ai ned thathe “di d nots peak
a n d
. . . d id n o t e n ter a n a p p e a ra n c e .” A c c o rd in g to S a m , R e e d c o n tin u e d to p ro v id e h im 11
w i th l egal advi ce unt i l O ct ober26, 2004. ¶ 1 2
. T h e d a te w h e n S a m d isc o v e re d th e a ffa ir is d isp u ted . R e e d te stifie d th a t S a m “ to ld
m e he l earned of

i ti n D ece m berof

2003. ” O n O ct ober15, 2004, Sam conf r ont ed R ebec ca aboutthe af

f ai r , al ong w i th cl os e fr i end s . D ur i ng thi s s ecr et l y vi deot aped c onf r ont at i on, 12

### Acc ording to Sam, he wa s lying and s tate d thi s only “t o get more truthfulans wer s 13 

### from [R ebecca].” Acc ording to Saum s, Sam re taine d S&I ’s s er vic es in l at e July 2004 f

or s urve il lance 14 

### of Rebec ca . 9 Sam cl ai m ed thathe ha d know n a boutthe af f ai rf ora ye ar . M or eover , Sam s t at ed thathe

13 p rev iou sly h ad w arn ed R ee d to en d the a ffair
. ¶13. Sam now s t at es that he l earned of the af f ai r on A ug ust 2, 2004. R obert Saum s , an empl oyee of

Secur i ty & I nves t i gat i ve Suppor tSer vi ces , I nc. (“S& I ”) , t es t i f i ed thaton 14 Au g u s t2 , 2 0 0 4 , S a m:
as ked S& I t o co nd ucta comput ers ear ch f oremai l on a . . . l apt op comput er th a th e i n d i c a t e d h a d b e e n o p e r a t e d b y [ Re b e c c a ]
. He wa n t e d t o s e e i f we coul d r etr i eve emai l w r i t t en by a nd t o [ R ebec ca] s o thathe coul d gai n i ns i ght i nt o hi s m arr i age. H e w ant ed t o kn ow w hat as pect s of thei rm ar i t al rel at i on shi p [R ebecc a] m i gh tbe d i scussi ng w i th fr i end s. T hi s s ear ch l ed t o di s covery of a l ett erent i t l ed “M y D ar l i ng B i l l
. ” Saums t es t i f i ed that

“ [ w] h e n I s h o we d th i s l e t t e rt o [ S a m] , h e wa s v i s i b l y s h a k e n a n d a l mo s tb r o k e i n t o t e a r s . He
se e m e d to h a v e b e e n ca u g h t to tally o ff g u a rd b y th is le tter.” A c c o rd in g to S a m ’s p sy c h iatris t, D r. M a rk M c L a in o f th e M iss iss ip p i N e u ro p sy c h iatric C lin ic, P L L C , S a m re p o rte d h is di s covery of

the af f ai ron A ugus t4, 2004. ¶14. O n N ovemb er 12 , 20 04 , Sam ent er ed R eed’ s of f i ce and demanded $3 m i l l i on f r om hi m and B akerD onel s on w i thi n tw o w eeks or the f i r m ’ s exec ut i ve comm i t t ee w oul d be not i f i ed, acc or di ng t o Sam , t o “di s cus s that[ R eed] , i n hi s r ol e and hi s s cope of empl oym ent
o f B a k e r D o n e lso n a n d p re sid e n t an d [C O O ], h a d u se d h is in fo rm a tio n a s m y a tto rn e y to sed u ce m y w if

e a n d d estroy m y m arriage an d m y li fe .” T h a t d a y , A d am s an d S am B lai r, gener al couns el f

orB akerD onel s on, w er e appr i s ed of the s i tuat i on. T her e i s no evi dence

### This count spe ci fi ca lly al le ged that

R eed had“e ngage d in an ongoing se cret and 15 

### covert sexu al affair with[Reb ecca] over aperio d o f time.” (Emp hasis ad ded .) The br ea ch- of- fi duci ar

y-duty count s a gainst

Ree d and Baker

Donel son a ll ege d that 16 

### “perso nal an d intimate info rmation ” regard ing S am’s “h ealth, fin ancial an d leg al affairs” were u sed “in[ReedandBak er Do nelso n’s] attorn ey-client andfidu ciary relatio nsh ips w ith [Sam]” to “facilitate th e sedu ctionof [R ebecca].” Acc ording to Sam, thepurporte d “pe rs onalan d intimat e infor mati on” wa s that

he “we nt into m

uch gr eate r de tailabout

theim pote nceand the e ff

ec t of thedrugs with [Re ed] than I did wi th [ Rebe cc a] .”In an af fi davi t, Sam

cl ai ms that Re ed util iz ed infor mati on “con cernin g myfinan cial con ditio n . . . whichwas p ertinent to mylegal claims ag ain st Banc orpSouth and r el ating t o my e li gibi li ty f or di sa bil it y[, ] ” in se ducing Rebe cc a. 10 that an y o n e a t B ak er D o n e lso n , o th e r tha n R ee d , w as a w are o f th e a ffairp ri o r t o S am ’s demand on N ovember12, 2004. W e ar e l ef tw i th onl y Sam’s a l l egat i ons that“ I thi nk us i ng the resources of B aker D on el son’s t i m e and his off i ce as presi den t , [ B aker D on el son] w [ as]
v e ry s u p p o rt iv e o f t h e a ff a ir .” ¶15. A D ece m ber 29, 2004, l ett er f r om B l ai r t o Sam pr ovi ded “[ w ] e do not have an ac t i ve fi le o n y o u r b e h a lf

, Sam P. Seay v. B ancor pSouth, et

al
. I n f

act , [ R eed] and [B aker D onel s on] decl i ned t o r epr es entyou a nd de cl i ned t o f i l e the l aw s ui tthati s curr ent l y pendi ng. Y ou have otherc ouns el thatr epr es ent s you i n thatr ef er ence d l i t i gat i on. ” The l ett eradded, “[ p] l eas e do nott ake [ R eed’ s ] att empt s t o as s i s tyou pr el i m i nar i l y w i th yourempl oym ent d is p u te a s [R e e d ’s ] a n d th e fi rm ’s re p re s e n ta tio n o f y o u in th e litig a tio n m a tte r . . . .” ¶16. O n M ay 27, 2005, Sam f i l ed s ui t agai ns t R eed and B aker D onel s on. A s t o R eed, t he compl ai ntal l eged c ount s of negl i genti nf

l i ct i on of

em ot i onal di s tr es s ; al i enat i on of af f ect i ons ; and br eac h of

f i duci ary duty. R egar di ng BakerD onel s on, the compl ai ntal l eged 15 count s of br eac h of

f i duci ary duty; e m pow erm ent ; negl i gentf ai l ur e t o s upervi s e, m anage , 16
orcontr ol ; and vi car i ous l i abi l i ty. Sam al l eged that , by vi r tue of t he act i on s of R eed a ndU nt i l Sept ember2001, Sam st at ed thathe and Rebecc a had a “very act i ve s ex [ l i f e] 17

. . . . ” Furt her m or e, w hi l e hi s i m pot ence , of w hi ch he a cknow l edged Rebecc a w as aw ar e, admi t t edl y had an a dver s e ef f ecton thei rr el at i ons hi p, Sam m ai nt ai ned that“I enj oyed a s uppor t i ve and be nef

i ci al m arr i age t o [ R ebec ca] up unt i l ” O ct oberorN ovember2003. C o n tr a s ti n g ly , 

### Rebe cc a s tate s that the rewas no se xualintim ac y in t he m ar ri age beginning in 1999, and that s he ha d multipledis cus si ons wi th ot her s a bout divorc ing Sam in t he ye ar s pri or to 2003. Acc ording to Re ed, Rebe cc a “ had be en t alking a bout divorc ing [Sam] for fo ur o r five y ears . . . to anyo ne who wo uldlisten.” Acc ording to Adams , Baker Donel son reduced R ee d’s bonus “ in res ponseto t he 18 

### hassle, expen se anddistractio n th at this threatenedlawsu it . . . created.” Reg ardin g th e Octo ber 1 5, 2 00 4, co nfro ntatio n, se e ¶ 12 sup ra . 19 

### 11 B a k e r D o n e lso n , h e w a s “ d e p riv e d o f th e a id , su p p o rt, p ro tec tio n , fello w sh ip , co m fo rt,
c o m p a n y , so c iety , se rv ice s a n d th e h a p p in e ss [h e ] o th e rw ise w o u ld h a v e re c e iv e d fro m h is
w i f e[ ]
. . . . Fur ther , [ he] ha s s uf f er ed gr eathum i l i at i on, di s honor , di s gr ace and di s tr es s of 17
m in d . . . .” ¶17. I n J une 2005, R eed vol unt ar i l y r es i gned fr om hi s pos i t i on as pr es i dent and C O O of B akerD onel s on, al though he r emai ned an empl oyee. Sam a l l eged thatBakerD onel s on t ook no f or m al di s ci pl i nary act i on agai ns tR eed. 18 ¶18. O n O ct ober 11, 2005, Sam f i l ed f or di vor ce, w hi ch s ubs equent l y w as gr ant ed on t he gr ound of

uncondoned a dul t ery by R ebec ca. ¶ 1 9
. S u b s e q u e n tl y , R e e d f il e d a “ M o tio n to C o m p e l D is c o v e ry ” o f, in tera lia , th e DVD
rec o rdin g o f th e O ctob er 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , co n fron tat ion
. O n Jan u ary 2 4 , 2 0 0 7 , the circu itco u rt 19 ordered Sam t o produ ce a copy of the D V D r ecordi ng for i n cam er a r evi ew , al ong w i th a pr i vi l ege l og. I n the s ubs equent l y f i l ed pr i vi l ege l og, Sam cl ai m ed a w or k- pr oductpr i vi l ege f orthe r ecor di ng.

### In an Ap ril 3, 200 7, dep ositio n, Sam testified that he hadthree separate law suits 20 

### pending: th e Ban corp So uthsuit; th e alienatio n-o f-affection s suit; an d anauto mob ile-accident claim. Ree d and Baker

Donels on counte re d that

“[t ] he fa ct

that defe ndant s haveobtaine d 21 

### [Sam’ s] me dic alre cords i s of no im port . I f that wer e thec as e, no def endant would e ver

be permittedto co nduct a Rule 3 5 ex aminatio n . . . .” 12 ¶ 2 0
. T h ere after, R ee d an d B ak er D o n elso n , p u rsua n t t o M issi ssipp i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 35, f i l ed a “ M ot i on t o C om pel Physi cal and M ent al E xami nat i on. ” A ccor di ng t o the mot i on: 1 . [S a m ’s ] c o m p lain t . . . se e k s to re c o v e r d a m a g e s fo r a lleg e d “ p e rm a n e n t, s er i ous and s ever e ment al and ps ych ologi cal i nj ur i es and r es ul t i ng phys i cal i nj ur i es ” w hi ch he a t tr i but es t o . . . R eed’ s re l at i ons hi p w i th R ebec ca . . . and, i n es s ence , vi car i ous l y t o B akerD onel s on.

. . . 2. I n Sept ember2005, [ Sam ] w as depos ed and cl ai m ed t o have s us t ai ned injuries su ch as d ep ression , an x iety , an d m igraine s a s a re su lto f .
. . R ee d ’s r el at i on shi p w i t h R ebec ca . . . . H ow ever , [ Sam ] al s o t es t i f i ed thathe has soug ht tr eatm entf

ors i m i l ari nj ur i es and otheri nj ur i es i n 2003 and 2004 re su lti n g fro m h is p re v io u s e m p lo y m e n t an d a c a r a c c id e n t, w h ich a re b o th in e ith e r l itig a tio n o r l e g a l n e g o tia tio n s .[ ] 20

. . . D ef endant s s houl d be ent i t l ed t o a medi cal e xami nat i on of [ Sam ] as t o both the cause an d ex t ent of

the all eged i njur i es w hich he h as pl aced int o co ntr ov ers y i n thi s cas e. Sam oppos ed thi s m ot i on, as s ert i ng thatB akerD onel s on and R eed ha d f ai l ed t o s how “good
caus e, ” i ns t ead of

f er i ng onl y “boi l erpl at e al l egat i on s[ , ] ” and thatal l of Sam ’ s m edi cal
r ecor ds had bee n r et ai ned by t hem, such thatt hey w er e “f ul l y aw ar e of

[ Sam ’ s ] pr e- exi s t i ng
m e n tal a n d p h y s ic a l co n d iti o n s a n d th e p h y sic a l an d m e n tal c o n d iti o n s c a u se d b y th e a c ts
a n d /o r o m is s io n s o f d e fe n d a n ts h e re in .” 21

### Acc ord ing to the le tt er from c ounse l f

or Re ed, “[ w] e c an only pre sum e that the 22 

### inten dedrecipient/addressee of th e [“Dear Jo hn ”] letter . . . was [attorn ey] John W alker.” 13 ¶21. L at er , B akerD on el son fi l ed i t s M oti on for Su m m ary Judgm ent . R el yi ng upon Chil dr e n’s Medical

G r oup v. P hil

li ps , 94 0 S o. 2d 93 1 (M i ss. 20 06 ), B aker D on el son pl eade d th a t: i tdef

i es r eas on f

or[ Sam ] t o a r gue thatReed’ s a f f ai rw as w i thi n the s cope of hi s e mpl oy menta nd i n a ny way f urthe r e d the b us i ne s s i nt e r e s to f B aker D o n e lso n . U n d e r M iss iss ip p i la w , cla im s a g a in st a n e m p lo y e r a risin g so lely o u t o f a n e m p lo y e e ’s a ffa ir . . . m u st f a il a s a m a tter o f la w . M r. R e e d ’s a ffa ir w ith a lo n g -tim e frie n d , n o t a c o -w o rk e r, a n d n o t a t w o rk , w a s n e ith e r w ith in the s cope of

hi s em pl oym ent , norw as i ti n f ur ther ance of

any of B aker D on el son’s busi ness i nter est s. R eed s ubs equent l y f

i l ed a M ot i on f

orPar t i al Sum m ary J udgm entas t o Sam ’ s cl ai m s f or
a lien a tio n o f a ffe c tio n s a n d b re a c h o f fid u ciary d u ty. R eg ard ing the b re a c h -o f-fid u c iar y -d u ty cl ai m , R eed m ai nt ai ned that“ [ a] s a mat t erof l aw , the s cope of

the dut i es ow ed by an a t t or ney t o hi s cl i enti s def

i ned and l i m i t ed by the s cope of the l egal r epr es ent at i on, and does not
e m b ra c e p u re ly p e rs o n a l a s p e c ts o f t h e p a rt ie s ’ l iv e s .” ¶2 2. T he r e a f

t e r , c ou ns e l f

or Ree d not i f

i e d co un s e l f

or Sa m tha t a “ D e a r J oh n” l e t t e rha d been di s cover ed w hi l e “c opyi ng the C hance ry C our tf i l e r el at ed t o the di vor ce pr ocee di ngs betw een Sam and R ebec ca . . . . ” R ecogni zi ng thatSam m i ghtas s ertpr i vi l ege w i th r es pect to th e lette r, c o u n se l fo r R e e d se a led th e s u b jec t lette r a n d fo rw a rd e d it t o th e c irc u it co u rt. 22 H o w e v e r, co u n se l fo r R e e d a d d e d th a t: [i] f th e d o c u m e n t [S a m ] cre a ted w a s n o t tra n sm itt e d b y h im to h is a tto rn e y , it i s pl ai nl y notpr i vi l eged. W e as s um e thatt o be the ca s e s i nce you have not i d e n t i f i e d t h e d o c u me n to n a p r i v i l e g e l o g . No ri s th e r e a n y a s s e r t i o n b y [ S a m] i n the cha ncery courtf

i l e cl ai m i ng thatthe documenti s pr i vi l eged. O n the otherhand, even i f t he documenti s w hatw oul d otherw i s e be a conf i dent i al

### S p ec if ically , the und ated letter rev eals that S am “susp ected th e affair from late 23 

### 20 03 [,] . . . [and] con firmed it o n Aug ust 3 , 20 04 .” Acco rdin g to Bak er Do nelso n, “b efore d eny ing [its] motio n for summaryjud gment, 24 

### the trial co urt refu sed to hear o ral argument o n th e motio n . . . .” Bake r Done ls on’s petition not ed that thi s Cour t previ ously had de nie d it s pe ti ti on 25 

### for interlocutoryapp eal of th e circuit co urt’s d enial o f its Ru le 12(b )(6) motio n to d ismiss. Acc ording to Baker

Donel son, that “ deni altook pl ac e be for e the Cour t rende re d it s opinion in Chil dren’sMedical

Group
. . . , whi ch Bake r Donel son bel ie ves i s dis posi tive of the instant action .” 14 comm uni cat i on betw een c l i entand att orney, the document“as r epr es ent ed” str o n gly suppo rt s the co nclusi on that [ S am ’s ] cl ai m s i n thi s l aw sui tare f r audul ent , [ ]
. . . ; cons equent l y, M i s s . R
. E vi d. 502( d) ( 1) hol ds t hatt he l ett er

23 i s notpr i vi l eged. T her e a f t e r , Bak e rDone l s on f

i l e d a “ M ot i on f

orI n Camer a Rev i e w a nd Det e r mi na t i on of D i s cover abi l i ty, ” and Reed fi l ed a “M ot i on t o D et erm i ne D i s cover abi l i ty and t o C om pel Pr oduct i on of

the D ocume nt , ” r egar di ng the “D earJ ohn” l ett er . A ccor di ng t o B aker D onel s on’ s m ot i on, “ei thert he att orney- cl i entpr i vi l ege i s i nappl i cabl e orthe cr i m e/ fr aud
e x c e p tio n p re v e n ts a p p lic a tio n o f t h e p ri v ile g e .” ¶23. O n A pr i l 16, 2008, the ci r cui t court ent er ed an “O rde r D enyi ng D ef endantW i l l i am R eed’ s M ot i on f

orPar t i al Sum m ary J udgm ent ” and a n “O r derD enyi ng D efendan tB aker D onel s on, etal
. M ot i on f orSum m ary J udgm ent , ” both w i thoutopi ni on. 24 ¶24. B akerD onel s on then fi l ed i t s peti t i on for i nter l ocu t ory ap peal , pr es ent i ng the 25 f ol l ow i ng ques t i on: [ w ] i th M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 79- 10- 67 and Childr e n’s Me dic al G r oup as l egal gui depos t s , can a pr of es s i onal corpor at i on l aw f i rm be l i abl e f

orthe s exual conductof

one of i t s l aw yer s w her e s uch conduc tw as out s i de the s cope of that l aw yer’ s em ploym ent, w as n o t i n furtherance o f the fi rm ’s bu si ness, and the f i r m had no know l edge of the r el at i ons hi p?

### 15

¶25. O n M ay 28, 2008, t he ci r cui tcour tent er ed t hr ee s epar at e or der s , each adve r s e t o R eed
an d B aker D on el son. T he O rderas t o V i deo and A ud i o R ecordi ng s R eview ed In C am era
c o n c lu d e d th a t, b e c a u se th e O c to b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , D V D re c o rd in g h a d b e e n “ p re v io u sly pr ovi ded t o def

end ant s . . . R eed’ s m ot i on t o compel i t s pr oduct i on i s m oot ; how ever , t he [ c] our tf i nds that[ the D V D r ecor di ng] i s pr ot ect ed by the att orney w or k pr oductdoctr i ne and
n o t ad m iss ib le a t trial . .
. . ” R e g a rd in g th e “ D e a r J o h n ” lette r, th e “ O rd e r o n D e fe n d a n ts B akerD onel s on and W i l l i am R eed’ s M ot i on t o D et erm i ne D i s cover abi l i ty and t o C om pel Pr oduct i on of D ocument , ” pr ovi ded t hatsi nce i t“w as acknow l edged by a l l couns el dur i ng the h ea ri n g that all
. . . are fam il iar w ith the co n tents o f the lett er . . . the issue s o f th e lett er’s dis cov erabi l i ty an d p roducti on are m oo t . ” T he o rderadd ed that“t he subj ectl et ter i s a pr i vi l eged c om m uni cat i on f r om [ Sam ] t o hi s att orney and ther ef or e notadmi s s i bl e as evi dence orf

oruse as i m peac hm entand def endant s ’ m ot i ons ar e deni ed. ” Fi nal l y, the O r der D en y ing D efe n d an ts’ M o ti o n to C o m p el P h y sic a l a n d M en tal E x am ination o f P lai n ti ff
c o n c lu d e d th a t: def endant s have f

ai l ed t o s how good c aus e f or[ Sam ] t o under go exami nat i ons by the phys i ci an and e xpertchos en by def endant s ; def

endant s of

f er ed no evi den ce thatthe depos i t i ons of [ Sam ] and hi s tr eat i ng phys i ci an and the pr oduct i on of

[ Sam ’ s ] m edi cal r ecor ds ar e i nadequa t e ori ns uf f i ci entt o s how [ S am ’s ] ph ysi cal and m ental st atus. ¶ 2 6
. On J u l y 3 1 , 2 0 0 8 , th i s Co u r te n t e r e d a n o r d e ri n Ca s e No. 2 0 0 8
- I A- 0 0 7 6 8
- S CT gr ant i ng B akerD onel s on’ s pet i t i on fori nt er l ocut ory appeal , as w el l as the Li m i t ed J oi nder i n Pet i t i on f

orI nt er l ocut ory A ppeal fi l ed by R eed a s t o the or derdenyi ng hi s M ot i on f or P art i al S um m ary J udgm ent . O n O ct ober6, 2008, thi s C our tent er ed an or deri n C as e N o. 2008- I A
- 00999- SC T gr ant i ng R eed’ s pet i t i on f ori nt er l ocutory appea l , as w el l as B aker

### Onapp eal, Reed“ackn ow ledg es that [S am] has stated leg ally co gn izable c laims 26 

### aga ins t him f

or a li enati on [of

af fe ctions ] and inf

li ction of em oti onaldi stre ss whi ch arenot suscep tible to interlo cuto ry rev iew.” 16 D o n e lso n ’s jo in d e r th e re in , o f th e th re e se p a ra te c irc u it c o u rt o rd e rs o f M a y 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 . T h is C ou rthas si nce co nsoli dated the int erl ocu t ory app eal s. I S S UES ¶2 7
. In C ase N o . 2 0 0 8 -IA -00 7 6 8 -S C T , this C o u rtw il l con side r: ( 1) W het her the ci r cui tcourterr ed i n denyi ng R eed’ s M ot i on f orPar t i al Sum m ary J udgm entas t o Sam ’ s cl ai m f orbr eac h of

f i duci ary duty. 26 ( 2) W hetherthe ci rcui tcourterr ed i n denyi ng B akerD onel s on’ s M ot i on f or S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t. In C ase N o . 2 0 0 8 -IA -00 9 9 9 -S C T , this C o u rtw il l con side r: ( 3) W hetherthe ci r cui tc our ta bus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n rul i ng thatthe O ct ober15, 2004, D V D r ecor di ng w as pr ot ect ed “a t t orney w or k pr oduct ” and w as in a d m iss ib le a t trial. ( 4) W hetherthe ci r cui tcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n rul i ng thatthe “D ear J ohn ” lett erw as pr ot ect ed by the att orney- cl i entpr i vi l ege a nd w as in a d m iss ib le a t trial. (5 ) W h e th e r th e c irc u it co u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g th e M o tio n to C om pel Physi cal and M ent al E xami nat i on.

CAS E NO. 2 0 0 8 -I

A- 0 0 7 6 8 -S CT S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶28. T hi s C our tr evi ew s the ci r cui tcour t ’ s deni al of s um m ary j udgm entundera de novo
s ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w . See Mil lerv. R . B . W

al l Co. , I nc. , 97 0 S o. 2d 12 7, 13 0 (M i ss. 20 0 7 ). S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t: i s appr opr i at e w her e “the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , answ ers t o i nt err ogat or i es a n d ad m iss io n s o n fil e , to g e th e r w ith the aff id a v its, if an y , sh o w th a t th e re is no genui ne i s s ue as t o any mat er i al f actand thatthe movi ng party i s ent i t l ed t o a j ud gmen ta s a matt e ro f l a w . ” M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 5 6( c )
. The b ur de n of

### “[ A] fi duci ar y re lati onship ne ed not

be c re at ed by c ontrac t; it may aris e f

rom an 27 

### inf orm alre lati onship whe reboth partie s unde rs tand that a spe ci altr ust and c onfi denc e ha s bee n repose d.” L ow er

y v. G uar. B ank and T r ust Co. , 5 9 2 S o . 2 d 7 9 , 8 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). 

### 17 demonstr at i ng thatther e ar e no genui ne i s s ues of m at eri al f

acti s upon the m o v an t, an d the n o n -m o v ing p arty m u st be g iven the b en efito f ev ery re a s o n a b le d o u b t. [Mos s v. Bates vil le Cas ket

Co. , I nc. , 935 So. 2d 393, 398 ( M i s s . 2006) ]
. “I s s ues of f act. . . ar e pr es entw her e one pa r ty s w ear s t o one ver s i on of

the mat t eri n i s s ue and anothers ays the oppos i t e. ” Id
. ( quot i ng Tu c k e r v . H

in d s C o u n ty , 5 5 8 S o . 2 d 8 6 9 , 8 7 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )). Mil ler , 970 So. 2d at130. A N A L Y S IS I . W het her t he ci rcui t court err ed i n denyi ng R eed ’ s M ot i on f or P arti al Sum m ary Judgm ent as t o Sam ’ s cl ai m f or breac h of f i duci ary dut y. ¶ 2 9
. T h is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t: [a] fidu ciary d u ty m u st ex istb efo re a b rea ch o f th e d u ty ca n o cc u r. “F idu ciary r el at i ons hi p” i s a very br oad t erm e m br aci ng both t echni cal f i duci ary r el at i ons and thos e i nf

or m al r el at i ons w hi ch exi s tw her everone pe r s on trus t s i n orr el i es u p o n an o ther.[ ] B lack ’s L aw D ictio n a ry 5 6 4 (5th ed
. 1 9 7 9 ). A fi d u ciary 27 relati o n sh ip m ay arise in a lega l, m o ral, do m esti c, or p erso n al co n text, w h ere there ap p ea rs “o n the o n e sid e a n o v erm astering influe n ce o r, o n the o ther, w eakne s s , depende nce, ortrus t , jus t i f i abl y r epos ed. ” Min er v. B ertasi , 530 S o . 2 d 1 6 8 , 1 7 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 ); Matterof E s tate of

H aney , 516 So. 2d 1359 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). L ow ery , 592 So. 2d at83. I n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , S am ’s bre ac h -of-fi d u ciary -du ty claim s are
s p e c if ic a lly p re d ic a te d u p o n th e e x is te n c e o f a n a tto rn e y -c lie n t r e la tio n s h ip
. See f ootnot e 16, supra . ¶30. A n att orney- cl i entr el at i ons hi p exi s t s w hen: ( 1) A per s on m ani f

es t s t o a l aw yerthe per s on’ s i nt entthatthe l aw yerpr ovi de l egal s ervi ces f

orthe per s on; and

### This Court is care fulto not e that

theexistence of a profe ss iona l, attor ney- cl ie nt 28 

### re lati onship is fa ct -spe ci fi c. For e xam ple , the m er e res ponseto a ques ti on at

a s oci al func ti on does not c re at e s uch a re lati onship. 18 (2 )(a ) T h e law y e r m a n ife sts to th e p e rso n c o n se n t to d o s o , o r ( b ) fa ils to m ani f es tl ack of

conse ntt o do s o, know i ng t hatthe per s on r eas onabl y r el i es on the law yer t o p rovi de the services , or ( c) a tri bu nal w i th p ow er t o d o so app oint s the law yer t o p rovi de the services
. S in g leto n v. S teg a ll , 580 So. 2d 1242, 1244 n. 2 ( M i s s . 1991) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed)
. A s s uch, f ee p a y m e n t b y th e c lie n t to th e a tto rn e y is n o t r e q u ir e d
. See id
. at1244. ¶ 3 1
. B a se d u p o n o u r re v iew o f th e sp e c ific fa c ts p re se n ted , w e a re o f th e o p in io n th a t a profes si on al rel at i on shi p arose w hen the rel at i on shi p ev olved “fr om a per s onal , or di nary type of r el at i ons hi p t o thatof

att orney- cl i ent [ , ] ” f

ori nt erval s of

t i m e. L o w e ry v. Sm ith , 543 So.

28 2 d 1 1 5 5 , 1 1 6 0 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 ). A s life lo n g frie n d s, R e e d o c c a sio n a lly h a d p ro v id e d S a m w ith f r ee l egal s ervi ces overthe yea r s . Fol l ow i ng Sam’s t erm i nat i on, Reed “ opened a pr o bono f i l e, ” r epea t edl y r ef

err ed t o Sam as hi s cl i enti n corr es pondence w i th B ancorpS ou t h, al l egedl y advi s ed Sam and Jone s , and att ended Sam’ s depos i t i on i n Sept emberorO ct ober 20 04
. T hu s, the p rof

essi on al rel at i on shi p co exis t ed w i th the personal rel at i on shi p for these i nt erval s of

t i m e. G i vi ng Sam “the bene f i tof every r eas onabl e doubt [ , ] ” Mil ler , 970 So. 2d at130, thi s C our tconcl udes that , bas ed on the undi s put ed f act s pr es ent ed, an att orney- cl i ent
r el at i ons hi p exi s t ed betw een Sam and R eed f orthatper i od, j us tas dur i ng pri ori nt erval s , as a mat t erof

l aw . T hus , R eed ow ed Sam a f i duci ary duty. ¶3 2
. S am asse rt s tha t a ge n u ine issu e o f m aterial fac t exists reg ard ing a b rea ch o f fi d u ciary d u ty b y R e e d , b a s e d u p o n , in tera lia , “R eed’ s admi s s i ons of cont empl at i ng and mai nt ai ni ng a cont empora neous romant i c and se xual re l at i ons hi p w i th [ R ebec ca] w i thoutdi s cl os i ng t he

### Give n the a bse nceof any evi denc e in there cord that anyone at Baker Donel son, 29 

### othe r than Re ed, was awareof the a ff air prior to Novem

ber 12, 2004, and the fa ct

that Sam’ s com plaint al lude s to theaf

fa ir as b eing “secret and cove rt ,”thi s Cour t f inds theext ens ion of th is argument to Bak er Do nelso n d ising enu ou s. See Issue II, infra
. Reedasserts that: 30 

### [t ] o theext ent

[he ] ac te d at

al l a s [ Sam’s] att orne y in 2003 and 2004, i t wa s sol ely in c onnec ti on with matt er s inci dent alto Bancor pSouth’ s te rm inati on of [Sam’ s] em

ploym ent , s uch a s handling post -t er mination insuranc e i ss ues and pro vi dinga dv i c e and

c ommun i c at i ngw i th [ Sam ’ s ] f or m e r e mpl oy e r

o n the scop e of a restrictiv e cov enant in [S am’s] employment co ntract. 19 r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d wi th o u ti mm e d i a t e l y t e r mi n a t i n g th e a t t o rn e y - c l i e n tr e l a t i o n s h i p wi th [ S a m]

. . . . ” S p e c i f

i c a l l y , a c c o r d i n g t o S a m: [ t ] h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e i n e s c a p a b l e i n f e r e n c e th a ta ts o me p o i n ti n t i me th e re w a s a n inte rse c tio n . . . o f R e e d ’s k n o w led g e o f h is o w n c o n flict o f se lf interest an d l u stf

u l des ir es to p u rsue a re lat ion sh ip w ith [R eb ec ca ] an d R ee d ’s f unct i oni ng as the a tt orne y f or[ Sam ] and as Pr es i dent/ C O O of B akerD onel s on

. . . . O nce the f

i r s ts uch i nt er s ect i on . . . occur red, b ot h R eed a nd B aker D on el son[ ] w ere on n oti ce t o av oid and d i scl ose t he co nfl i ctof i nter est s.

29 Sam m ai nt ai ns thats uch di s cl os ur e w as avoi ded, i n part , s o a s not“ t o r i s k l os s of [ Sam ] as
a s o u rc e o f b u s in e s s .” ¶33. R eed r es ponds that “the gener al rul e . . . , abs ent unus ual ci r cumst ance s , [ i s that ] t he
s cope of an att orney’ s f

i duci ary duty t o hi s o r her cl i ent doe s notexce ed the s cope of t he lega l r ep rese n tat ion
. ” R eed m ai ntai ns that “so m e m aterial relati o n sh ip b etw ee n an att o rne y ’s
a lle g e d to rt a n d th e a lleg e d leg a l re p re se n tatio n m u st e x ist fo r p ro fe ss io n a l li a b ili ty . . . to att ach. ” A ccor di ng t o R eed: the af f ai rw as w hol l y unre l at ed t o any l i m i t ed att orney- cl i entr el at i ons hi p that m ay have ex i st ed betw een Reed and [ Sam ] and w as f arout s i de the s cope of a lle g e d le g a l r e p re s e n ta tio n in v o lv in g [S a m ’s ] e m p lo y m e n t c la im .[ ] 30 M o re o v e r, th e u n d isp u ted e v id e n c e , co n tra ry to [S a m ’s] c o n c lu so ry c laim , is

### 20

thatR eed di d notbr eac h any cl i entconf i dence s , nordid he use a ny c o n fi d e n tia l in fo rm a tio n to s e d u c e [R e b e c c a ]. T o hol d otherw i s e w oul d, acc or di ng t o R eed, “s ubj ectatt orneys to l i abi l i ty on ‘ br eac h of f i duci ary dut y’ cl ai m s i n every i ns t ance i n w hi ch an a t t orney, w hol l y apartf r om hi s orher pr of es s i onal r el at i ons hi p w i th hi s orhercl i ent , al l egedl y com m i t t ed a t or tagai ns ta per s on
w h o a ls o h a p p e n e d to b e a c lie n t.” ¶34. “The r el at i ons hi p of att orney and cl i ent i s one of s peci al trus t and conf i dence
. T he l aw r equi r es thatal l deal i ngs betw een them s hal l be char act er i zed by t he ut m os tfa i rnes s and go od fa i th on t he partof the att orney. ” L ow ery , 543 So. 2d at1161 ( quot i ng G w in v. Fo u n ta in , 159 M i s s . 619, 126 So. 18 ( 1930) )
. A n at t orney- cl i entre l at i ons hi p i m pos es t he f ol l ow i ng dut i es , “( a) the duty of car e, ( b) the duty of

l oyal ty, and ( c) dut i es pr ovi ded by contr act . ” Singleton , 580 So. 2d at1244. T he duty of l oyal ty: i s f i d u c i a r y i n n a tu r e . I n th e p r e s e n tc o n t e x ti t s b r e a c h ma y t a k e o n e o f two fo rm s. T h e firstinv o lves situ ati o n s in w h ich th e a tt o rne y o b tai n s an u n fair per s onal advant age, s uch as acqui r i ng pr operty f r om a cl i ent; the s econd i nv olves s i tuati on s i n w hich the att orney o r other cl i ents hav e i nter est s adverse to th e c lien t in q u e stio n . W e h a v e re c e n tly d e fin e d th e law y e r’s d u ty o f lo y a lty t o i ncl ude a duty t o:
sa fe g u a rd th e c lien t’s c o n fid e n c e s a n d p ro p e rty , av o id conf l i c t i ng i nt e r e s t s tha tmi gh ti mpai rthe r epr es ent at i on, and not e m p lo y a d v e rse ly to the clie n ts p o w e rs c o n fe rre d b y th e c lien tl aw yerr el at i ons hi p. [ Singleton , 5 8 0 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 4 5 ]. T yson v. Moo re , 6 1 3 S o . 2 d 8 1 7 , 8 2 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). ¶35
. T h is C o u rtis un p ersu ad ed b y S am ’s asse rt ion that R ee d fail ed to safe g u ard conf i dent i al i nf

or m at i on re gar di ng S am’s i m pot ence , and i ns t ead ut i l i zed s uch i nf or m at i on

### As Baker Donel son c onte nds, Sam’s “impot enc e – and theext ent the re of – wa s 31 

### wh ollyirrelevant to h is contractual claims ag ainst B anco rpS outh.” 21 t o “f aci l i t at e the s educt i on of [ R ebec ca]
. ” Fi r s t , thi s Courts ees no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f actr egar di ng the cl ai m of excl us i ve conf

i dent i al i ty of

s uch i nf or m at i on, as Sam admi t t ed thatR ebec ca w as aw ar e of hi s i m pot ence pr i ort o the af f ai r . Second, the pr e- exi s t i ng, nonl egal r el at i ons hi p exis t i ng b et w een Sam and R eed, and f i nal l y the abs ence of

a cl ai m of im p o tenc e in th e B an co rpS o u th co m p lai n t, lead s u s to c o n clud e tha t ev en w ere this C o u rt 31 t o as s um e a c onf

i dent i al di s cl os ur e, i tw as unr el at ed t o the r epr es ent at i on undert aken a nd, th u s , o u ts id e th e a tto rn e y -c lie n t sc o p e o f th is “ c o m m in g le d ” re la tio n s h ip
. L ow ery , 543 So. 2d at 1160. L i kew i s e, thi s C our ti s unper s uaded by Sam’ s ar gum entthatR eed ut i l i zed i n f o r ma t i o n “ c o n c e r n i n g my f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n . . . wh i c h wa s p e r t i n e n tt o my l e g a l c l a i ms agai ns tB ancorpSout h and r el at i ng t o m y el i gi bi l i ty f ordi s abi l i ty[ , ] ” i n s educi ng R ebec ca. E ven w hen cons i der i ng a mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent , “[ a] concl us ory, s el f
- s ervi ng
a ffid a v it, u n su p p o rte d b y m a ter ial fa c ts re lev a n t t o the p ro p o sitio n at issu e , is in su ffic ien t .

. . . ” D alton v. Cel

lularSouth, I

nc. , 2 0 S o . 3 d 1 2 2 7 , 1 2 3 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 ). ¶36. T hi s C our t has s t at ed t hat “ a l aw yer has a dut y t o i nf or m hi s cl i ent of al l m att er s of
r eas onabl e i m po rt ance r el at ed t o the r epr es ent at i on orar i s i ng ther ef r om . ” T ys on , 613 So. 2 d a t 8 2 7
. See al

s o Jo e v. T

w o T h irt y N in e Jo in t V en tu re , 145 S. W
. 3d 150, 159 ( T ex. 2004) ( quot i ng R a n k in v. N

a fta lis , 5 5 7 S
. W
. 2 d 9 4 0 , 9 4 4 (T ex . 1 9 7 7 )) ( “[g]en era ll y , a law y er’s fid u c iar y d u ties to a c lien t, alth o u g h e x tre m e ly im p o rta n t, ‘e x ten [d ] on ly to d e a lin g s w ith in t he scope of

the under l yi ng r el at i ons hi p of the part i es . ’ ”)
. N o m at er i al f act s have be en pr es ent ed t o s uppor tthatthe s ubj ectaf f ai rw as i n any w ay “r el at ed t o the r epr es ent at i on or

### 22

ar i s i ng ther ef

r om . ” T ys on , 613 So. 2d at827. A s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

actexi s t s on the i s s ue of

w hethera n a dul t er ous a f f ai rbe tw een R eed and R ebec ca c ons t i tut ed a br eac h of th e fid u c iar y d u ty R e e d o w e d to S a m , this C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t th e c irc u it co u rt e rre d in denyi ng part i al s um m ary j udgm entt o R eed a s t o Sam ’ s cl ai m of br eac h of

f i duci ary dut y. II. W h eth er th e c ircu it co u rt e rr ed in d en y ing B a k er D o n elso n ’s M o ti o n for S u m m a ry J u d g m en t.

V ica rio u s lia b ility ¶37. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 79- 10- 63( 2) provi des that“[t ] he rel at i ons hi p betw een a dom es t i c orf

or ei gn pr of

es s i onal corpor at i on and t he cl i entorpat i entf orw hom i t s empl oyee i s r ender i ng pr of

es s i onal s ervi ces i s the s ame as thatbetw een the cl i ento r pat i ent and the empl oyee. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 79- 10- 63( 2) (Rev. 2009). M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 79- 10- 6 7 (2) a d d s tha t “[ a] do m esti c o r fo reign p rofe ssion al co rpo rati o n w h o se e m p loy ee s p erfo rm profes si on al services w ith in th e sc o p e o f th e ir e m

p lo y m e n t o r o

f th e ir a p p a re n t a u th o rity to act f orthe cor

por at i on i s l i abl e t o t he s ame ext entas i t s empl oyees . ” M i s s . Code A nn. § 79- 1 0 -67 (2) (R ev . 2 0 0 9 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶38. A ccor di ng t o B aker D onel s on, “i t cannot be s er i ous l y cont ended that the cons ens ual af f ai r( ors ol i ci t at i on of

thataf f ai r ) betw een Reed and [ R ebec ca] – w ho had bee n f r i ends f or
m or e [ than] thi r ty year s – w as w i thi n the s cope of R eed’ s empl oym entorw i thi n the s cope of hi s ‘ appar entauthor i ty’ t o actf orB akerD onel s on. ” B akerD onel s on m ai nt ai ns thateven: [a ]ss u m in g , ar

guendo , thatR eed br eac hed hi s duty of l oyal ty t o [ Sam ] by us i ng i nf or m at i on “r el at ed t o the r epr es ent at i on” to se duce [ R ebec ca] – a c o n ten tio n th a t B a k e r D o n e lso n v ig o ro u sly d e n ies – R e e d ’s b re a c h o f h is d u ty w a s m o tiv a ted b y p u re ly p e rso n a l re a so n s a n d n o t in a n y w a y re late d to h is empl oym entorthe bus i nes s of B akerD onel s on.

### 23

N o t o n ly w a s R e e d ’s a ffa ir “ th e q u in tes se n tial e x a m p le o f a n a c tiv ity th a t is fo r p u re ly p e r s o n a l b e n e f

i ta n d o u t s i d e th e s c o p e o f e mp l o y me n t [ , ] ” b u ta l s o , th e a f f a i r“ wa s u n k n o wn to a n y o n e a t B a k e r D o n e lso n .” In su m , B a k e r D o n e lso n a rg u e s th a t: [s]inc e R e e d ’s a ffa ir an d alle g e d b re a c h o f lo y a lty to [S a m ] w e re p u re ly fo r h is own pu rpo s e s , o ut s i de the s c op e o f h i s e mpl oy ment , a nd Bak e rD onel s on r ece i ved no be nef

i tw hat s oeverf

r om hi s a ct i ons , M i s s i s s i ppi c om m on l aw and M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 7 9 -1 0 -6 7 p re c lu d e a n y c laim o f v ica rio u s lia b ili ty agai ns tB akerD onel s on f orR eed’ s al l eged br eac h of f i duci ary duty. A ccor di ng t o BakerD onel s on, i f Sam’s pos i t i on i s a dopt ed, “ any pr of es si on al corpor at i on
w oul d be l i abl e f

orthe w r ongf

ul act s of i t s prof

es s i onal s , re gar dl es s of w hetherthos e w r ongs h a d a n y th in g to d o w ith th e p ro fe s s io n a ls ’ e m p lo y m e n t o r c o rp o ra te fu n c tio n .” ¶ 3 9
. S a m a d m its th a t R e e d ’s a ffa ir w ith R e b e c c a w a s n o t “m o tiv a ted b y a d e sire to b e n e fit B a k e r D o n e lso n [,] ” a n d th a t B a k e r D o n e lso n d id n o t “g a i[n ] so m e c o rp o ra te b e n e fi t” th e re fro m . S a m m e re ly p re se n ts th e a rg u m e n t th a t: [ a] s s um i ng ar

guendo thatnot i ce of

R eed’s m i s conductw oul d gener al l y be r equi r ed t o be gi ven t o R eed’ s super i or , [ A dams] , bef or e B akerD onel s on had a duty t o exer ci s e f

i duci ary r es pons i bi l i t i es conce rni ng R eed’ s conf l i ctof i nt er es t s and f

ai l ur e t o hones t l y di s cl os e and a voi d s uch conf l i ct , the evi dence s how s thats uch ea r l i ernot i ce w oul d have be en unava i l i ng. Scope of em pl oym ent ¶40
. “[ S ] om e act i on s ar e so cl earl y b eyo nd an em ployee’s c our s e and s cope of empl oym ent th a t th e y c a n n o t f

o rm th e b a s is fo r a c la im o f v ic a r io u s l ia b ility , a s a m a tte r o f l a w .” Childr e n’s Me dic al

G r oup , 9 4 0 S o . 2 d a t 9 3 5
. See al s o Jacks on v. R i

ghter , 891 P. 2d 1387, 1391 (U t ah 1995) ( “w her e the empl oyee’ s conducti s s o cl ear l y out s i de the s cope of
em p loy m ent that r easona ble m i nd s canno tdif fer , the is sue m ay p roperl y b e decided as a
m att er o f l aw ”).

### 24

¶ 4 1
. R e g a rd in g th e sc o p e o f e m p lo y m e n t, th is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t: [ u] nderSect i on 228 of

the R es t at ement( Second) of A gency: (1) C o n d u ct of a serv an t i s w ith in the sco p e o f em p loy m en t i f, b u t on ly if: ( a ) i ti s o f

th e k i n d h e i s e mp l o y e d t o p e r f o r m; ( b) i toccur s subs t ant i al l y w i thi n the author i zed t i m e and s pace l i m i t s; ( c) i ti s act uated, atl eas ti n part , by a purpos e t o s erve the m a s te r, and (d) if force is i n tention all y u sed b y the s erv an t aga inst an o ther, the u se o f force is no t un ex p ec table b y the m aster. (2) C on du ctof a servan ti s notw i thin t he scope of em ploym ent i f i ti s di f f er ent i n kind f rom tha tau tho ri

zed, f ar beyo ndthe a uthori

zed t i m e or spac e l i m i t

s, ort oo l i t t l e actuat ed by a pur pos e to s er ve the m as t er . Childr e n’s Me dic al

G r oup , 940 So. 2d at935 ( quot i ng R es t at ement( Second) of A gency § 2 2 8 (1 9 5 8 )) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). “I f a n e m p lo y e e ‘d e v iate s o r d e p a rt s fr o m h is w o rk to
a c c o m p lish s o m e p u rp o se o f h is o w n n o t c o n n e c ted w ith h is e m p lo y m e n t – g o e s o n a ‘fro lic of hi s ow n’ – the r el at i on of m as t erand s ervanti s t empora r i l y s us pended’
. . . . ” Ch il dren ’s Me dic al G r oup , 940 So
. 2 d at935 ( quot i ng Seedkem S. , I nc. v. L ee , 391 So. 2d 990, 995 (M iss. 1 9 8 0 )). ¶42. I n Childr e n’s Me di c al G r oup , thi s C ou rtn oted t hat “[ o] therj ur i s di ct i ons have sp ec if icall y fou n d that an em p loy ee ’s affair w i th a cow orkeri s beyond the cour s e and s cope of empl oym ent . ” Childr e n’s Me dic al G r oup , 940 So. 2d at936 ( ci t i ng Me rc ierv. D a n iels , 5 3 3 S .E .2 d 8 7 7 , 8 8 1 (N .C . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Jacks on , 8 9 1 P .2 d at 1 3 9 0 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h is C our thel d that“[ i ] tdef i es r eas on t o ar gue thatengagi ng in an aff ai ratw or k ordur i ng
w or ki ng hours i n any w ay f ur ther ed t he busi nes s i nt er es t s of C M G orenhanc ed the medi cal
car e of C M G ’ s pedi atr i c pat i ent s . ” Childr e n’s Me dic al G r oup , 9 4 0 S o . 2 d at 93 6
. In

### 25

Jacks on , the U t ah Supr eme C our ts t at ed that“M r . R i ght erw as nothi r ed t o per f or m act s of
a s e x u a l n a tu re o n , o r m a k e ro m a n tic o v e rt u re s to w a rd , a n e m p lo y e e u n d e r h is s u p e rv is io n .” Jacks on , 891 P. 2d at1391. ¶43. G i ven thi s Court ’ s e ar l i erc oncl us i on thatt he subj ect aff ai r w as not i n an y w ay “r el at ed t o the r epr es ent at i on orar i s i ng ther ef r om [ , ] ” s ee ¶ 36 supra ( quot i ng T ys on , 613 So. 2 d a t 8 2 7 ), alo n g w ith S a m ’s a d m iss io n th a t th e a ffa ir w a s n o t “m o tiv a ted b y a d e sire to benef i tB akerD onels on ” an d the abs ence of any evi dence thatanyone a tB akerD onel s on otherthan R eed, w as aw ar e of the “s ecr etand cove r t ” af f ai rpr i ort o Sam ’ s demand on N ovember12, 2004, thi s C our tconcl udes thatthi s i s the type of f r ol i c “s o cl ear l y beyond an empl oyee’ s cour s e and s cope of empl oym entthat[ i t ] cannotf or m the bas i s f

ora cl ai m of vi car i ous l i abi l i ty, as a mat t erof l aw . ” Childr e n’s Me dic al G r oup , 940 So. 2d at935. E m pow er m ent ¶4 4
. T o “ em p o w er” is d efine d a s “ [t ] o inv est w ith lega l po w er: au tho ri ze . ” W eb ster’s I I N e w C o lleg e D ictio n a ry 3 6 9 ( 1 9 9 5 ). See al s o B l ack’ s L aw D i ct i onary 618 ( 4th ed. 1968) (de fi n ing “e m p o w er” as “ [a] g ran t of au tho ri ty rathe r th an a c o m m an d o f it s ex erc ise”). B as e d u po n the s e de f

i ni t i on s of

e mpow e r ment , i ti s mor e l i ke l y a c on s i de r a t i on w i thi n the “s cope- of

- empl oym ent ” i nqui r y t han a se par at e cons i der at i on al t ogether
. M or eover , B aker D onel s on not es that“ther e i s no caus e of act i on underM i s s i s s i ppi l aw know n as ‘e m p o w e rm e n t.’” S a m p ro v id e s n o c itatio n to th e c o n tra ry . T h e re fo re , this C o u rt e n d s its

“ e m p o w e rm e n t” in q u ir y h e re . See In r e A do p tio n o f Min o r Ch ild , 931 So. 2d 566, 578 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ) (“ a n ap p e llan t’s fa ilu re to c ite a n y leg a l au th o rity to su p p o rt [h is] arg u m e n t w ill p roc ed u rall y b ar tha t i ssu e fro m b eing co n side red o n ap p ea l”).

### 26 N egli gent s uper vis i on ¶45. U nderM i s s i s s i ppi l aw , “ empl oyer s do notha ve a duty t o s upervi s e thei rempl oyees
w h e n th e em p loy ee s are o ff- d u ty or n o t w o rkin g . . . . M o reo v er, an em p loy er’s du ty to
su p erv ise d o es n o t i n clud e a d u ty to u n co v er h is em p loy ee s’ c on c e ale d, c lan de s t i ne , pers onal act i vi t i es . ” Ti c he norv. R om an Cathol i c Chur c h of

the D i oc e s e of

N e w O r le ans , 32 F. 3d 9 5 3 , 9 6 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See al s o W il liam s v. U

. S. Fid. & G uar. Co. , 854 F. 2d 1 06 , 1 09 ( 5th Ci r . 1 98 8) ( “ [ t ] he Res t a t e ment( 2d ) o f Tort s § 3 17 n a rr owl y l i m i t s an empl oyer ’ s duty t o contr ol a s ervant ’ s conductout s i de the s cope a nd pl ace of empl oym ent t o i nst ances i n w hi ch the s ervanti s ‘ us i ng a cha t t el of the mast er . ’ T he M i s s i s s i ppi legislatu re a n d co u rt s h av e n o t sug g ested a b roa d er c o m p ass.”). ¶46. A ccor di ng t o BakerD onel s on, “ s i nce R eed’ s c overts exual conductw as out s i de the
sc o p e o f h is e m p lo y m e n t an d p u re ly fo r h is o w n b e n e fit, B a k e r D o n e lso n h a d n o leg a l ‘d u ty t o s upervi s e, ’ w hi ch i s a s i ne qua non o f a ne gli gen tsupervi si on cl ai m . ” T his C ou rtagrees. Sam acknow l edged thatt he af f ai rw as “se cr etand cover t , ” and t hatB akerD onel s on gai ned
n o “ c o rp o ra te b e n e fi t” th e re fr o m . T h is “ c o n c e a le d , c la n d e s tin e , p e rs o n a [l] a c tiv it[y ,]” T i chenor , 32 F. 3d at960, i s the t ype w hi ch B akerD onel s on had no duty t o s upervi s e, s uch thatthi s C our tconcl udes the ci r cui tcourterr ed i n denyi ng s um m ary judgm entt o B aker D onel s on on Sam ’ s cl ai m of negl i gents upervi s i on. D ire c t b re a c h o

f fid u c ia ry d u ty ¶4 7. Sa m’ s di r e c t - br e a c h- of
- f i du c i a ry- du ty cl a i m a ga i ns t Bake r D on e l s on i s ba s ed upon the l aw fi r m ’ s re f

us al t o apol ogi ze f

orR eed’ s act i ons , fa i l ur e t o form al l y di s ci pl i ne R eed, and actof hi r i ng a pr i vate i nv est i gat ort o exami ne Sam’s cl ai m s , f ol l ow i ng Sam ’ s demand of

### 27

payment . A s t o S am’s cl ai m s re gar di ng al l eged f ai l ur e t o apol ogi ze orf

or m al l y di s ci pl i ne R eed, Sam pr ovi ded no author i ty t o s uppor thi s as s ert i on thats uch ac t i ons gi ve ri se t o a cogni zabl e clai m o f

br eac h of

f i duci ary duty. T her ef

or e, thi s C our tw i l l notgi ve f ur ther
c o n s id e ra tio n to s u c h c la im s . See In re A do p tio n o f Min o r Ch ild , 931 So. 2d at578. ¶48. R egar di ng i t s hi r i ng of a pr i vat e i nves t i gat or , B akerD onel s on cont ends thati t“w as
com plet el y just i fi ed u nd er the R ules of P rof essi on al C on du ctt o defend i t sel f agai nst[ S am ’s ] thr eat ened l aw s ui t [ , ] ” i ns of ara s Sam’s de m and of

$3 m i l l i on “ r epr es ent ed a r epudi at i on of any trus the had r epos ed i n R eed. T hus , atthatt i m e, any att orney- cl i entr el at i ons hi p thatm ay h av e e x ist ed w as e ffecti v ely s ev ere d
. ” M o reo v er, B ak er D o n elso n n o tes that S am ’s compl ai nt“ does nota vera ny pos t - know l edge m i s conducton the partof B aker D on el s on. S im ilarly , [S a m ’s] p ra y e r fo r re lief o n ly se e k s d a m a g e s fo r th e h a rm alle g e d ly c a u se d to h im b y th e s o lic ita tio n o f t h e a ff a ira n d th e lo s s o f h is s p o u s e .” ¶ 4 9
. T h e C o m m e n t to M iss iss ip p i R u le o f P ro fe ss io n a l C o n d u c t 1 .6 p ro v id e s, in p a rt, th a t: [ w ] her e a l egal clai m o r di s ci pl i nary char ge al l eges . . . m i s conductof the l aw yeri nvol vi ng r epr es ent at i on o f the cl i ent , the l aw yerm ay r es pond t o the e x te n t th a t la w y e r r e a s o n a b ly b e lie v e s n e c e s s a ry to e s ta b lis h a d e fe n s e . . . . Such a cha r ge ca n ar i s e i n a ci vi l , cr i m i nal , di s ci pl i nary orotherpr ocee di ng and can be bas ed on a w r ong al l egedl y comm i t t ed by the l aw yeragai ns tthe c lie n t . . . . M i s s . R
. Pr of’ l C onduct1. 6 cmt
. T hi s C our tconcl udes t hatal l def endant s ar e l egal l y ent i t l ed t o def end themsel ves . B akerD onel s on i s no exce pt i on. A ddi t i onal l y, none of Sam ’ s cl ai m ed damages purpor tt o r el at e t o conductar i s i ng on oraf t erhi s dem and on N ovember12, 2004, the in it ial d ate w h en B ak er D o n elso n w as a p p ri se d o f th e “ sec ret an d co v ert” affair.

### Regarding t he Oc tobe r 15, 2004, DVD r ec ording trans cript , Sam m aintains that “ the 32 

### re cord bef

orethi s [ C] ourt

does not include thevi deo r ec ording . . . revi ewe d in c am era by the trial co urt[,]” but insteadco ntain s on ly an“un auth enticatedtranscrip t” of “th e aud io portion of

thevide o/a

udio revi ewe d in camera by t he tri aljudge .”As t o the“De ar John” 28 A ccor di ngl y, thi s C our tconcl udes thatthe ci r cui tcourterr ed i n denyi ng s um m ary j udgm ent t o B akerD onel s on on Sam ’ s cl ai m of di r ectbr eac h of

f i duci ary duty. CAS E NO. 2 0 0 8 -I

A- 0 0 9 9 9 -S CT S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 5 0
. T h is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t it :
r evi ew s the tr i al court ’ s admi s s i bi l i ty of evi dence underthe abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d.
. . . Fur therm or e, thi s C ourtw i l l af f i r m the tr i al court ’ s rul i ng “ ‘[u ]nle ss w e c a n sa fe ly sa y tha t th e tri a l co u rt a b u se d its ju d icia l d isc re tio n in a llo w in g o r d is a llo w in g e v id e n c e s o a s to p re ju d ic e a p a rt y in a c iv il c a s e . . .

. ’ ” [E lli s v . S ta te , 93 4 So
. 2d 10 00 , 10 04 ( M i s s . 20 06 ) ] ( qu ot i ng Jon es v. S ta te , 9 1 8 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 )). Tu rn e r v . S ta te , 3 S o . 3 d 7 4 2 , 7 4 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 ). A N A L Y S IS ¶ 5 1
. P re lim in a rily , S a m a rg u e s th a t: [ t ] he or der s f

r om w hi ch appe al i s t aken w er e the s ubj ectof atl eas ttw o ( 2) s epar at e h e a r i ng s i n the tr i a l c ou r tb utthe r e c or d he r e c on t a i ns “no s te n o g ra p h ic re p o rt o r tr a n s c ri p t o f a ll o r p a rt o f t h e e v id e n c e o r p ro c e e d in g s .” M
. R
. A
. P. 10 ( c )
. N ordo e s the r e c or d c on t a i n a s t a t e mentof the pr oc e edi ngs m ade in com pli ance to ei ther R ule 10(c) , (d) or ( e). U nd er these ci r cumst ance s , the Suprem e C our tw i l l “pr es um e thatthe dec i s i ons of the l ow erc our t s a r e corr ect. . . [ and] af f i r m . ” O a k w o o d

Ho m e s Co rp . v. R a n da ll , 8 2 4 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 2 , 1 2 9 3 -94 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). A l t ernat i vel y, as t o the O ct ober15, 200 4, D V D r ecor di ng tr ans cr i ptand the “D earJ ohn” l ett er , Sam cont ends t hat thi s C our thas notbeen pr es ent ed w i th pr oper l y authent i cat ed d o c u me n t s f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w. 32

### le tt er , Sam c onte nds that Re ed “s ubstit

ute d a doc ume nt for

the ‘l ost ’ docum ent

revi ewe d and pla ce d unde r se alby thetri alc ourt wi thout c onfirm ation and authori zati on by thetria l c ourt or b y th is [C]ourt” suchthat “th ere is no ‘D ear Jo hn ’ letter befo re th is [C ]ourt fo r its review .” Reg ardin g th e Octo ber 1 5, 2 00 4, D VD record ing transcrip t, Reedadd s that: 33 

### thr e e attrib ut e s o f

th i s c a s e p l a c e i t

s qu ar e lyo ut s i d e th e s c o p e o f MRAP 10(b) (2) : ( 1) the i ss ue of the subje ct vide ota pe’ s a dmi ss ibi li ty wa s ne ver bef orethetria l c ourt ; ( 2) Re ed doe s not cl ai m a s the ba si s f or hi s a ppea l anything t hat a ll ege dly occ urr ed or did not occ ur during any he aring; and ( 3) theOrde r appe ale d from – agre ed asto form by both parties – memoriali zes thetrial court’ s rati onalein anyev ent . (Emp hasis ad ded .) 29 ¶52. I n r es pons e, R eed a s s e rt s tha t“ [ i ] ns t ead of ar gui ng t o uphol d the thr ee s epar at e rul i ngs

. . . on the m eri t s . . . , [ Sam ] r es or t s t o att empt i ng t o underm i ne the s uf f i ci ency of

the
a p p e llate re c o rd c e rt if

ie d b y th e C irc u it C ler k , w h ich h e , tog e th e r w ith a p p e llan ts, jo in tly
s u b m itte d to th is C o u rt .” A c c o rd in g to R e e d , th e “ J o in t S u p p le m e n ta l R e c o rd o n A p p e a l,”
w h ic h w a s “ file[d ] w ith th is C o u rt o n Ju n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 " a n d “ c e rtified b y th e H in d s C o u n ty C i r cui tC our ton J une 3, 2009 i n com pl i ance w i th M R A P 10( e) [ , ] ” i ncl uded both “the tra n sc rip t o f th e su b

jec t vid e o tap e ” a n d th e “ D e a r Jo h n ” lette r. A s s u c h , R e e d a rg u e s th a t, pur s uantt o N

or wood v. I

n r e Exte ns i on o

f Bounda r ie s of

Ci t y of I tta Bena , 788 So. 2d 747 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ), S am h as w aive d h is “righ t t o d ispu te the su ffi cien cy o f the rec o rd in this reg ard

. . . . ” R egar di ng authent i cat i on of the O ct ober15, 2004, D V D re cor di ng t r ans cr i pt , R eed 33
m ai nt ai ns thatthe documenti s “s el f
- authent i cat i ng, ” pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E v iden ce 9 0 2 (8), as “itw as c erti fi ed b y K ell y D
. B ren tz, ‘C o u rtR ep o rt er a n d N o tary Publ i c. ’ ” A s t o authent i cat i on of the “D earJ ohn” l ett er , R eed c ont ends t hat“[ t ] he di s t i nct i veI n the eve ntt hatno tr ans cr i pti s avai l abl e, “the appe l l antm ay pr epare a s t at ement 34 of the ev i den ce or proceed i ng s f rom the b estavail able m eans, i ncludi ng r ecoll ect i on . ” M i ss. R
. A p p . P
. 1 0 (c). 

### 30 c h a ra c te ri s tic s o f t h e . . . le tte r . . . e s ta b lis h it s a u th e n tic ity p u rs u a n t t o M R E 9 0 1 (b )( 4 )
. . . .” ¶ 5 3
. “ [T ]h e b u rd e n is o n th e a p p e lla n t to d e m o n s tr a te w h y th e lo w e r c o u rt w a s in e rr o r[ ,]” and “w e pr es um e thatthe dec i s i ons of the l ow erc our t s a r e corr ect. . . . ” O akw ood Hom es , 824 So. 2d at1294 ( ci t i ng R o b in so n v. S ta te , 3 4 5 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 4 , 1 0 4 5 (M is s . 1 9 7 7 ))
. See a l so K irk v. K och , 607 So. 2d 1220, 1223 ( M i s s . 1992) ( quot i ng V inson v. Johnson , 493 So. 2d 947, 949 ( M i s s . 1986) ) ( “[ i ] n the abs ence of a nythi ng i n the r ecor d a ppear i ng t o the contr ary, thi s C our tw i l l pr es um e the tr i al co urtacte d pr oper l y, and i f evi dence w as nece s s ary, t hat
c o u rt h e a rd su ffic ien t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt th e ju d g m e n t”) . M iss iss ip p i R u le o f A p p e llate Pr ocedur e 10( b) ( 2) pr ovi des , i n pert i nentpart , that“ i f the appe l l anti nt ends t o ur ge on appe al thata f i ndi ng orc oncl us i on i s uns uppor t ed by the evi dence ori s contr ary t o the evi dence , t he appel l ants hal l i ncl ude i n the r ecor d a tr ans cr i ptof al l evi dence r el evantt o s uch f i ndi ng or
c o n c lu sio n .” M iss . R . A p p . P . 1 0 (b )(2 ). H o w e v e r, th is C o u rt h a s a lso sta ted th a t:

34 R u le 1 0 (a ) p ro v id e s “ [t]h e p a rt ie s s h a ll d e s ig n a te th e [c o n te n t o f th e ] re c o rd .” W hi l e R ul e 10( b) ( 2) does r equi r e an appel l antt o pr ovi de a pr operdes i gnat i on t o al l ow t he r evi ew i ng courtt o r es ol ve the i s s ues , an appe l l ee ha s the oppor tuni ty t o s uppl ementthe appel l ant ’ s de s i gnat i on i f the appel l ee f

eel s that i ti s def i ci ent , and s houl d notthen be a l l ow ed t o c om pl ai n i f he f ai l s t o do s o. N or w ood , 788 So. 2d at752. ¶ 5 4
. A s to th e iss u e su rro u n d in g th e O c to b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , D V D r e c o rd in g tra n sc rip t, th is C ou rtfi nd s that the rat i on al e of the ci rcui tcourti n it s su a sp o n te admi s s i bi l i ty det erm i nat i on

### Regarding authentic ation of thetrans cript , thi s Court

f inds that c erti fi cati on by the 35 

### cour t reporter was sufficient. See M is s. R . E v id . 9 0 2 (8 ) ( “[ e]x tr in si c e v id en ce o f auth enti ci ty as a condition pre ce dent

to admi ss ibi li ty is not require d with re spe ct to thefol lowing: . . . (8) Ack nowle dged Doc uments . Docume nts ac com pani ed by a

ce rtif ic at e of ac knowle dgme nt exe cut ed in themanner

provide d by law by a

notary publ ic or other

off ic er authori ze d by law to tak e ackn ow ledg ments.”); In re MichaelsStores , I nc. , 20 04 WL2 85 17 82 at

*2 n. 2 (N. D. Tex. Dec . 10, 2004) ( “the Cour t c oncludes that t

he c ourt report er ’s ce rtif

ic at e att ac hed to t

he trans cript s e st abl is hes the ir authentic it

y”)
. Th is Co urt is unpersu adedby Sam’s auth enticatio n argument, as on ly a p rima facie 36 

### sho win g of auth enticityis requ ired for purpo ses o f admissib ility. See Y ou ng v. Gu ild, 7 So. 3d 251, 262 ( Mis s. 2009). See Mis s. R. Civ. P. 26(b) (1) & (3)
. 37 

### 31 i s s t at e d i n the “ O r de ra s t o V i de o a nd Audi o Rec or di ng s Rev i e w e d I n Camer a ” ( i
. e. , t he D V D r ecor di ng “ i s pr ot ect ed by the att orney w or k pr oductdoctr i ne . . . . ”)
. R egar di ng the 35 i s s ue pert ai ni ng t o the “D earJ ohn” l ett er , thi s C our tl i kew i s e f i nds thatthe r at i onal e behi nd th e c irc u it co u rt’s a d m iss ib ili ty d e ter m in a tio n is m e m o ria lize d in th e “ O rd e r o f D e fe n d a n ts B akerD onel s on and W i l l i am R eed’ s M ot i on t o D et er m i ne D i s cover abi l i ty and t o C om pel P rod u cti o n o f D o cu m en t” (i
. e., the a tt o rne y -cli en t pri v il eg e a tt ac h ed to the let ter). 36 I I I . W he t he r t he ci r c ui t c our t abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n r ul i ng t hat t he O ct ober 15, 2004, D V D rec ordi ng w as prot ect ed “at t orn ey w ork p r o d u c t” a n d w a s in a d m iss ib le a t tr ia l. ¶5 5
. T h e “ O rde r as to V ideo an d A u d io R ec o rdin g s R ev iew ed In C am era ” o f the c ir c u it
c o u rt d e te rm in e d th a t R e e d ’s “ M o tio n to C o m p e l D is c o v e ry ” w a s m o o t a n d th e n , su a sp o n te , concl uded thatthe s ubj ectD V D r ecor di ng “i s pr ot ect ed by the att orney w or k pr oduct d o c tr in e a n d n o t a d m is s ib le a t tr ia l . . . .” ¶56
. “T he w ork pr od uct do ct ri ne[ ] prot ect s an at t orney’s tho ug hts , m ental i m press i on s, 37
s tr at egi es and ana l ys i s f r om di s covery by oppos i ng couns el
. ” Hew es v. L angston , 853 S o.

### 32

2d 1237, 1245 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng H i ckm an v. T

aylor , 329 U
. S. 495, 510- 11, 67 S. C t . 385, 393, 91 L
. E d. 451 ( 1947) )
. T hi s doctr i ne: “does notexi s tt o pr ot ecta conf i den t i al r el at i ons hi p butt o pr om ot e the adver s ary s ys t em by s af eguar di ng the f

rui t s of an att orney’ s tr i al pr epar at i ons f r om the di s covery att empt s of an opponent . ” [ Shi el

ds v. Sturm , R uger& Co. , 864 F. 2d 379, 382 ( 5th C i r . 1989) ]
. W i thoutthi s . . . , “[ i ] nef f i ci ency, unf ai r nes s and s harp pr act i ces w oul d i nevi t abl y devel op i n the gi vi ng of l egal advi ce and i n the pr epar at i on of c as es f ortr i al
. ” H

i ckm an , 329 U
. S. at511 .

. . . Hew es , 8 5 3 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 4 5 . A s s tate d b y Ju stic e R e h n q u ist in h is c o n c u rrin g o p in io n in U nited States v. N

obles , 4 2 2 U
. S
. 2 2 5 , 9 5 S
. C t. 2 1 6 0 , 4 5 L
. E d
. 2 d 1 4 1 (19 7 5 ): [ s ] i nce H

i ckm an . . . , C ongr es s , the ca s es , and the comm entat ors have uni f or m l y cont i nued t o vi ew the “w ork pr oduct ” doctr i ne sol el y as a l i m i tat i on on pr etr i aldis cove r

y and not

as a qual i

f i ed ev i dent i ar

y pr i vi l ege . I n 1970, C ongr es s became i nvol ved w i th t he pr obl em f ort he f i r s tt i m e i n the ci vi l ar ea. I tdi d s o s ol el y by acce pt i ng a propos ed am endmentt o Fed. R ul e C i v. Pr oc. 26, w hi ch i ncorpor at ed m uch of w hatthe C our thel d i n H i ckm an . . . w i th r es pect to p retri al disco v ery . . . . [T h e R u le do es n o t] li m i[ t] the p o w er o f th e tri al co u rt to o rde r pro d u ction as e v iden ce o f pr i ors tat em ent s of w i tnes s es w ho have t es t i f i ed at tr i al
. N obles , 4 2 2 U .S
. a t 2 4 6 (R e h n q u is t, J ., c o n c u rr in g ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See al s o Shaw v. W utt ke , 137 N
. W
. 2d 649, 653 ( W i s . 1965) ( “the i m m uni ty of the att orney’ s w or k pr oduct in re sp e c t to a w ri tte n s ta tem e n t ce a se s to e x ist w h e n th e p e rso n m a k in g th e sta tem e n t is p lac e d o n the sta n d as a w itn e ss at th e tri a l. B y b e c o m in g a w itn e ss th e p e rs o n s u bje c ts h im self t o the risks o f i m p ea ch m en t and the a tt o rne y h as h ad the b en efito f his w o rk p rod u ct. ”). ¶ 5 7
. P r e l i mi n a r i l y , t h i s Co u r te x a mi n e s th e “ wo r k
- p r o d u c t ” c l a i m o f th e s u b j e c t DVD
re c o rd in g . W h ile S a m p ro v id e d d e p o sitio n tes tim o n y th a t an a tto rn e y h a d a d v ise d h im to t ape- r ecor d the conf

r ont at i on, thi s Courti s unpe r s uaded thatthe ac tual D V D r ecor di ng of t heA dd i t i on al l y, w i th r es pectt o s ecr ett ape- r ecor di ng, one f eder al di s tr i ctcourthas 38 sta ted th a t: [ b]y s ur r ept i t i ous l

y tape r ecordi ng the s tat em ent s of co- w orker

s , plai nt i f f has vi t i at ed the qual i

f i ed protect i on of

R ul e 26( b) ( 3)
. [ “] W i thout
. . . pr oduct i on, pl ai nt i f f uni l at er al l y m ai nt ai ns the abi l i ty t o us e the s ecr et l y r ecor ded sta tem e n ts fo r d isc o v e ry p u rp o se s a n d fo r i m p e a c h m e n t p u rp o se s a t trial. F u n d a m e n tal fa irn e ss re q u ire s th a t th e d e fe n se b e a ffo rd e d th e o p p o rtu n ity , if [d e fe n d a n t] s o d e s ir e s , to u s e th e s ta te m e n ts [f o r t h e s a m e p u rp o s e s ].” R ober t s on v. N at ’l R . R . P as s engerCor

p. , 1999 W L 199093, at*1 ( E
. D
. L a. A pr i l 8, 1999) ( quot i ng P

f ei f erv. State Far m I

ns. Co. , 1 9 9 7 W L 2 7 6 0 8 5 , a t *3 (E
. D
. L a. M ay 2 2 , 1 9 9 7 )) ( emphasi s added)
. T hi s w oul d al s o er adi cat e any Rul e 26 (b) (3) p r ot ect i on af f or ded t o t he admi t t edl y s ecr et l y- r ecor ded conf r ont at i on. 

### 33 s ubs equentconf

r ont at i on r epr es ent s “ment al i m pr es si ons , concl us i ons , opi ni ons , orl egal th e o r i e s o f

a n a t t o r n e y o ro th e rr e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a p a r ty c o n c e rn i n g t h e l i t i g a t i o n . ” M i s s . R. C iv . P . 2 6 (b )(3 ). F u rth e rm o re , this C o u rt n o tes tha t th e “w o rk -p ro d u c t” d o c trin e p e rta in s to p re trial d isc o v e ry , n o t ad m iss ib ili ty , su c h th a t th e c irc u it co u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in pr edi cat i ng i t s admi s s i bi l i ty det erm i nat i on ther eon. See M iss. R
. C iv. P. 26 (b)(1 ) & (3); 38 N obles , 4 2 2 U
. S
. at 24 6 (R eh n q u ist , J. , co n cu rri n g ). ¶5 8
. T h is C o u rtco n clud es th at th e c ir cu itco u rt ’s ad m issi b il ity d eterm ination w as in erro r. T he admi s s i bi l i t y of t he subj ectD V D r ecor di ng i s t o be det erm i ned attr i al abs entany
cons i der at i on of

the “a t t orney w or k pr oduct ” pr i vi l ege. ¶ 5 9
. I n s u m, t h e i n a p p l i c a b i l i ty o f th e “ wo r k
- p r o d u c t ” d o c t r i n e t o t h e s u bj e c t DVD
r ecor di ng; i nappl i cabi l i ty of t he “w or k- pr oduct ” doctr i ne t o admi s s i bi l i ty; and obvi at i on of th e “ w o rk -p ro d u c t” d o c trin e w ith re sp e c t to se c re t tap e -re c o rd in g s a ll ca u se th is C o u rt to concl ude thatthe ci r cui tcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on, a nd thus e rr ed, i n rul i ng su a sp o n te t hat the s ubj ectD V D r ecor di ng w as i nadmi s s i bl e.

### Mississip pi Rule o f Ev iden ce 50 2(a)(5 ) pro vid es that “[a] communicatio n is 39 

### ‘c onfi dentia l’ if

not inte nded t o be di sc losed to th ird per sons othe r than thoseto whom dis cl osure i s m adein f

urtheranc e of

therendi ti on of profe ss iona l le galse rvi ce s t o thecl ie nt or thos e re as onably nece ss ar y for thetransm is si on of the c omm unic ation. ” Mi ss . R. Evid. 502(a)( 5). 34 I V . W he t he r t he c i r c ui t c our t abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n r ul i ng t hat t he “D ear John” l et t er was prot ect ed by t he at t orney- cl i ent pri vi l ege a n d w a s in a d m iss ib le a t tr ia l. ¶60. T he O r der on D ef endant s B aker D onel s on and W i l l i am R eed’ s M ot i on t o D et erm i ne D i s cover abi l i ty a nd t o Com pel Pr oduct i on of D ocumentof

the ci r cui tcourtdeemed “i s s ues
o f t h e le tte r’ s d is c o v e ra b ility a n d p ro d u c tio n . . . m o o t.” T h e o rd e r t h e n a d d e d , su a sp o n te , thatthe att orney- cl i entpr i vi l ege a t t ache d t o t he l ett er , s uch thati tw as “notadmi s s i bl e as
e v id e n c e o r f

o r u s e a s im p e a c h m e n t . . . .” ¶61. M i s s i ssi pp i R ul e of E vi dence 502( b) pr ovi des , i n pert i nent part , that “[ a] cl i enthas
a pr i vi l ege t o r ef

us e t o di s cl os e and t o pr eventa ny otherpe r s on fr om dis cl os i ng conf i dent i al [ ] comm uni cat i ons m ade f orthe purpos e of

f aci l i t at i ng the r end i t i on of 39 profes si on al l egal s ervi ces t o the cl i ent ( 1) bet w een h i m sel f .
. . and h i s l aw yer . . . . ” M i ss. R . E v id . 5 0 2 (b ). A c c o rd in g to th is C o u rt: “[ t ] he att orney- cl i entpr i vi l ege i s the ol des tof t he pri vi l eges f orconf i dent i al c omm un i c a t i on s k no w n t o the c omm on l a w . ” U pjohn C o. v. U

nited States , 4 4 9 U .S . 3 8 3 , 3 8 9 , 1 0 1 S . C t. 67 7 , 6 6 L . E d . 2 d 5 8 4 (1 9 8 1 ). “I ts p u rp o se is to e n c o u ra g e fu ll an d fra n k c o m m u n ica tio n b e tw e e n a tto rn e y s a n d th e ir c lien ts and ther eby t o promot e br oaderpubl i c i nt er es t s i n the obs ervance of l aw and admi ni s tr at i on of

j us t i ce. ” Id
. at389
. . . . “Thatpurpos e, of cour s e, r equi r es thatcl i ent s be f

r ee t o m ake f

ul l di s cl os ur e t o thei ratt orneys . ” U nited States v. Zo lin , 4 9 1 U
. S
. 5 5 4 , 5 6 2 , 1 0 9 S
. C t. 2 6 1 9 , 1 0 5 L
. E d
. 2 d 4 6 9 (19 8 9 ).

. . .

### 35

T hi s C our thas i nt erpr et ed the s cope of the att orney- cl i entpr i vi l ege unde r M i s s i s s i ppi l aw br oadl y, s t at i ng: the pr i vi l ege r el at es t o and cove r s al l i nf or m at i on r egar di ng the c lien t r ece i ved

by the at t orney i n hi s pr of es s i onal capa ci ty and in the c o u rse o f his rep rese n tat ion o f th e c li en t. Inc lud ed are comm uni cat i ons m ade by the cl i ent t o t he att orney and by the a tto rn e y to th e c lien t. In th a t se n se it i s a tw o -w a y stre e t. B a rn e s v . S ta te , 4 6 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 , 1 3 1 (M is s . 1 9 8 4 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). . . . “ [I ]f a comm uni cat i on betw een a l aw yerand cl i entw oul d f aci l i t at e the r endi t i on of l egal s ervi ces oradvi ce, the comm uni cat i on i s pri vi l eged. ” [D u n n v. S ta te Far m Fir e & Cas . Co. , 9 2 7 F .2 d 8 6 9 , 8 7 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 )]. Hew es , 8 5 3 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 4 4 (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l). T h e b u rd e n o f p ro o f re sts w ith th e p a rty
a s s e rt in g th e a tto rn e y -c lie n t p ri v ile g e . See U nited States v. H

ar r el s on , 754 F. 2d 1153, 1167 ( 5th C i r . 1985)
. A tora l ar gum ent , counse l forS am acknow l edged thathe di d notr ece i ve the
s ubj ectl ett er . T her ef

or e, thi s C our thas notbeen pr es ent ed evi dence thatthe l ett er , not
r ece i ved by couns el , cons t i tut ed a pr i vi l eged com m uni cat i on t o w hi ch the att orney- cl i ent pri vil ege ap pli es. ¶62. M or eover , i n l i ght of the f act that the ci r cui t court ’ s i nadmi s s i bi l i ty rul i ng as t o t he O c to b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , D V D re c o rd in g w a s in e rr o r, s ee Is s u e II I, supra , and gi ven thatthe “D ear J ohn” l ett ers t at es thatSam “s us pect ed the af f ai rf r om l at e 2003[ , ]
. . . [ and] conf i r m ed i ton A ugus t3, 2004[ , ] ” thi s C our tconcl udes t hatt he ci r cui tcourtonce a gai n abus ed i t s di s cr et i on

### Sim il arly, thecirc uit c ourt a buse d i ts di sc re ti on in pres uma bly finding no waive r by 40 

### Sam, incon clud ing that th e “Dear Jo hn ” letter was in admissib le. “O ne meas ur e” of t he “cont i nui ng conf

i dent i al i ty” of

a document“i s the degr ee of car e exhi bi t ed i n [ i t s ] keepi ng, and the r i s k of

i ns uf f i ci entpr eca ut i ons m us tr es tw i th the party cl ai m i ng the pr i vi l ege. ” In re Ho ro w itz , 482 F. 2d 72, 82 ( 2nd C i r . 1973) ( quot i ng U nited States v. K

el s ey- H ayes W heel Co. , 1 5 F .R .D . 4 6 1 , 4 6 5 (E .D . M ic h . 1 9 5 4 ))
. See al s o T he N avajo N ati on v. P eabody Holding Co. , 255 F. R
. D
. 37, 45 ( D
. D
. C
. 2009) ( quot i ng In re S ealed Case , 877 F. 2d 976, 980 ( D
. C
. Ci r . 1989) ) ( “t o pr es erve pr i vi l ege, a party m us t‘ j eal ous l y guar d[ ] ’ i t s conf i dent i al d o c u m e n ts a n d tre a t th e m ‘lik e jew e ls

– if n o t c ro w n jew e ls’” ). L ik e w ise , S a m fa iled to cl ai m the att orney- cl i entpr i vi l ege, a nd di d nots eek pr i vi l eged- comm uni cat i on s t atus f ort he “ D e a r Jo h n ” lette r c o n tain e d in th e p u b lic re c o rd s o f th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt. 

### 36 i n rul i ng thatthe “D earJ ohn” l ett erw as i nadmi s s i bl e. T he adm i s s i bi l i ty of the s ubj ect 40 l ett eri s t o be det erm i ned att r i al abse ntany consi der at i on of the “a t t orney- cl i ent ” pr i vi l ege. V . W he t he r t he c i r c ui t c our t abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de nyi ng t he M ot i on t o Com pe l Phys i c aland M e nt alExam i nat i on. ¶63. T he ci r cui tcourt ’ s “O r derD enyi ng D efendan t s’ M oti on to C om pel Physi cal and M e n tal E x a m in a tio n o f P lain tiff” fo u n d a n a b se n c e o f “ g o o d c a u se ” a n d th a t “d e fe n d a n ts of f er ed no evi dence thatthe depos i t i ons of [ Sam ] and hi s tr eat i ng phys i ci an and t he produ ct i on of [ S am ’s ] m edical r ecords ar e i nad equ at e or i nsuff i ci ent t o sho w [Sa m ’s ] p h y s ic a l a n d m e n ta l s ta tu s .” ¶ 6 4
. M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 3 5 (a ) p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt, th a t: [ w ] hen the m ental o r phy si cal co nd i t i on . . . o f a pa rty . . . i s i n co ntr oversy , the courti n w hi ch the ac t i on i s pendi ng m ay or derthe party t o s ubm i tt o a phys i cal orm ent al exami nat i on by a s ui t abl y l i cens ed orcert i f i ed exa m i ner. . . . T he or derm ay be made onl y on m ot i on f o rg o o d c a u s e s h o wn . . . . M iss . R . C iv . P . 3 5 (a ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). G iv e n th e d e a rth o f M iss iss ip p i ca se law o n R u le 35, r ender i ng thi s an i s s ue of fi r s ti m pr es s i on fort hi s C our t , al ong w i th the l i m i t ed natur e of the re co rd w ith resp ec t t o th is issue (i
. e., o n ly th e m o ti o n an d sub seq u en t o rde r), th is C o u rt

### 37

conc l ud e s tha tthe c i r c ui tc ou r td i d no ta bu s e i t s d i s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng Ree d a nd B aker D onel s on’ s M ot i on t o C om pel Physi cal and M ent al E xami nat i on. CO NC L US I ON ¶6 5
. A cc o rdin g ly, i n C ase N o . 20 0 8 -IA -00 7 6 8 -S C T , th is C o u rtrev erse s the circu it co u rt ’s de ni a l o f Ree d’ s M ot i on f

orPa r t i a l Su mm a ry J ud gmen ta nd Bak e rDone l s on ’ s M ot i on f or S u m m ary Jud gm ent, and rem and s the case w i th d i rect i on s t o rende r par t i al sum m ary jud g m en t i n fav o r of R ee d as to S am ’s claim o f bre ac h o f fid u c iary d u ty an d su m m ary ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f B a k e r D o n e lso n , an d fo r fu rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is opi ni on. ¶66. I n C as e N o. 2008 -I A -0099 9-SC T , thi s C ou rtaff i r m s the ci r cui tcourt ’ s deni al of R eed’ s and B akerD onel s on’ s M ot i on t o C om pel Physi cal and M ent al E xami nat i on; r ever s es the cir cuitcou rt ’s s ua s po nt e (1) det erm i nat i on thatthe O ct ober15, 2004, D V D r ecor di ng
w as pr ot ect ed “a t t orney w or k- pr oduct ” and i nadmi s s i bl e attr i al a nd ( 2) det erm i nat i on t hat th e “ D e a r Jo h n ” lette r w a s p ro tec ted b y th e a tto rn e y -c lien t p riv ileg e a n d in a d m iss ib le a t trial; and r emands f

orf ur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ¶67. 2 0 0 8 - I A- 0 0 7 6 8 - S CT : RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. 2 0 0 8 - I A- 0 0 9 9 9 - S CT: AFF I RM ED I N PART; REVERSED AND REM AND ED I N PART. W AL LE R, C. J . , CARLS ON, P. J . , DI CKI NS ON, LA M AR, AND CHAN DL ER , J J . , CO NCU R. PI ERCE, J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND DI S S ENTS I N PART W I TH S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . GR AV E S , P . J . , AN D K I T CH E NS , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . PI ERCE, J UST I CE, CO NCU RRI NG I N PART AND DI S S ENTI NG I N PART:

### 38

¶68. T his C our thas s ai d, “[ a] n at t orney m us tdeal w i th t he cl i enti n a m annerof ‘ ut m ost hones ty, good f

ai th, f ai r nes s , i nt egr i ty, a nd f

i del i ty. . . . ’ ” T

yson v. Moo re , 613 So. 2d 817, 8 2 3 (M is s . 1 9 9 2 ) ( q u o tin g 7 A C .J .S
. A tto rn e y & C lien t § 2 3 4 (19 8 0 )) ( em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e re fo re , I ca n n o t ag re e w ith th e m a jo rity o n th e iss u e o f w h e th e r th e a d u ltero u s a ffa ir betw een Reed and Rebecc a cons t i tut ed a br eac h of t he f i duci ary duty R eed ow ed t o Sam as hi s att orney. T he maj or i ty f i nds that“[ n] o mat er i al f act s ha ve bee n pr es ent ed t o s uppor tt hat th e s u b jec t a ffa ir w a s in a n y w a y ‘re late d to th e re p re se n tatio n o r a risin g th e re fro m ’” (M a j. O p. ¶ 36) and hol ds thatthe t r i al cour terr ed i n denyi ng part i al s um m ary j udgm entt o R eed
on S am ’s breach o f f

i du ci ary duty cl aim
. B ec ause t his i s a quest i on forthe jury, I m ust d is s e n t in p a rt . ¶ 6 9
. T h is C o u rt h a s s a id , “ [ w ] i thoutdoubt , a la w y e r h a s a d u ty to in fo rm h is c lien t of a ll
m a tters o f re a so n a b le im p o rta n c e re late d to th e re p re se n tatio n o r a risin g th e re fro m . T h is i ncludes adv i ce regardi ng m at t ers the cl i ent m ay r eas onabl

y s ee as pr es ent i ng confl i ct s of i nt e r es t ” I

d . at827 ( ci t i ng R es t at ement( T hi r d) of the Law G overni ng L aw yer s § 31 ( T ent at i ve D r af

tN o. 5 ( 199 2)) (em phas i s added)
. W e have f ur therhel d thatthe duty of lo y a lty inc lu d e s th e d u ty to “ a v o id c o n flictin g in ter e sts th a t m ightim p a irth e re p re s e n ta tio n .” I d. a t 8 2 3 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶70. I t i s r eas onabl e that Sam m ay have s een hi s l aw yer ’ s adul t er ous af f ai r w i th hi s t henw i f e as pr es ent i ng a conf

l i ctof i nt er es tt o R eed’ s r epr es ent at i on of hi m . G enui ne i s s ues of
m at er i al f

acte xi s t , ther ef

or e, on the i s s ue of

w hetherthe af

f ai rbetw een Reed and Rebecc a
c o n stitu ted a b re a c h o f th e fid u c iar y d u ties R e e d o w e d to S a m . T h u s, th e tria l co u rt p ro p e rly d e n ied R e e d ’s m o tio n fo r p a rtial su m m a ry jud g m e n t as to th is issu e . T h is C o u rt h a s re c e n tly

### 39

sta ted , “[o ]rd in a ry ju ro rs p o ss e ss th e re q u isite k n o w led g e a n d lay e x p e rtise to d e ter m in e if an adul t er ous af

f ai rbetw een a n att orney and hi s cl i ent ' s w i f e i s a br eac h of

a duty ow ed by an att orney to hi s cl i ent . ” P ier ce v. Cook , 992 So. 2d 612, 618 ( M i s s . 2008)
. T hi s i s s ue shou l d b e l eftt o such j urors . ¶ 7 1
. I c o n c u r w ith th e m a jo ri ty o n a ll o th e r iss u e s . H o w e v e r, fo r th e fo re g o in g re a s o n s , I
w oul d r emand t he i s s ue of w hetherR eed’ s adul t er ous af f ai rw i th R ebec ca c ons t i tut ed a br eac h of the f

i duci ary dut i es he ow ed Sam , and m us tdi s s entf r om the maj or i ty opi ni on on thati s s ue.