Opinion ID: 2537114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Direct breach of fiduciary duty

Text: ¶ 47. Sam's direct-breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim against Baker Donelson is based upon the law firm's refusal to apologize for Reed's actions, failure to formally discipline Reed, and act of hiring a private investigator to examine Sam's claims, following Sam's demand of payment. As to Sam's claims regarding alleged failure to apologize or formally discipline Reed, Sam provided no authority to support his assertion that such actions give rise to a cognizable claim of breach of fiduciary duty. Therefore, this Court will not give further consideration to such claims. See In re Adoption of Minor Child, 931 So.2d at 578. ¶ 48. Regarding its hiring of a private investigator, Baker Donelson contends that it was completely justified under the Rules of Professional Conduct to defend itself against [Sam's] threatened lawsuit[,] insofar as Sam's demand of $3 million represented a repudiation of any trust he had reposed in Reed. Thus, at that time, any attorney-client relationship that may have existed was effectively severed. Moreover, Baker Donelson notes that Sam's complaint does not aver any post-knowledge misconduct on the part of Baker Donelson. Similarly, [Sam's] prayer for relief only seeks damages for the harm allegedly caused to him by the solicitation of the affair and the loss of his spouse. ¶ 49. The Comment to Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 provides, in part, that: [w]here a legal claim or disciplinary charge alleges ... misconduct of the lawyer involving representation of the client, the lawyer may respond to the extent that lawyer reasonably believes necessary to establish a defense.... Such a charge can arise in a civil, criminal, disciplinary or other proceeding and can be based on a wrong allegedly committed by the lawyer against the client.... Miss. R. Prof'l Conduct 1.6 cmt. This Court concludes that all defendants are legally entitled to defend themselves. Baker Donelson is no exception. Additionally, none of Sam's claimed damages purport to relate to conduct arising on or after his demand on November 12, 2004, the initial date when Baker Donelson was apprised of the secret and covert affair. Accordingly, this Court concludes that the circuit court erred in denying summary judgment to Baker Donelson on Sam's claim of direct breach of fiduciary duty.