Court Opinion

ID: 9534903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:43:27.742163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:07.066095
License: Public Domain

BARHAM, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the majority’s finding that Cheek breached a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff and that he should be cast in judgment for the profits he made on the land sale to the plaintiff. I dissent from the majority’s absolving Fetzer, an attorney, from responsibility and liability. Fetzer entered into an attorney-client relationship with plaintiff. His representation of Cheek and the plaintiff simultaneously in these matters presents a conflict of interest which could not be resolved or evaded. He breached a duty owed by an attorney to his client when he undertook the representation of plaintiff without disclosure of special knowledge he had regarding the fiduciary. breach of Cheek. Fetzer’s breach of his attorney-client duty to plaintiff should cast him solidarity with the defendant Cheek.