Opinion ID: 2344727
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discovery of communications between the partnerships, general partners and their counsel

Text: As a consequence of its partial summary judgments, the trial court denied Appellant's discovery motions regarding the full communications between the partnership, general partners and their counsel in regards to the discussion, planning and implementation of the restructuring of the partnership into the LLC. Neither did the Court of Appeals consider the issue, having regarded it as moot, given its affirmance of the trial court's summary judgment rulings. Although the trial court in its opinion gave no reason for denying the production, the arguments and record suggest the basis was attorney-client privilege. This privilege is generally considered to be absolute as to communications made by or to a person advising with an attorney as to past transactions and offenses. Steelvest, 807 S.W.2d at 487. However, the rule does not apply to future transactions when the person seeking the advice is contemplating . . . the perpetration of a fraud. Id. We would presume to place the breach of fiduciary relationship on an equal par with fraud and deceit. Id. Accordingly, we determine, as a matter of law, that a breach of a fiduciary duty is equivalent to fraud. Id. Thus upon remand, we hold that the attorney-client privilege cannot be used to prevent discovery of the requested information to the extent the information requested deals with, assists, or furthers the breach of a fiduciary duty by the general partners or the Partnership.