Huie v. DeShazo
922 S.W.2d 920 · Texas Supreme Court · 1996
Facts
Harvey K. Huie is the executor of his deceased wife's estate and the trustee of three testamentary trusts created for their daughters. One daughter, Melissa Huie Chenault, sued Huie in February 1993, alleging breach of fiduciary duties, mismanagement, self-dealing, diversion of business opportunities, and commingling/conversion of trust property. Huie's lawyer, David Ringer, represented Huie in his capacity as executor and trustee since Mrs. Huie's death. Ringer was compensated from trust funds before the lawsuit but personally by Huie afterward. During a deposition, Ringer refused to answer questions about trust management and business dealings, asserting attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges.
Procedural history
Melissa Huie Chenault moved to compel responses from Huie's attorney, David Ringer, while Huie moved for a protective order. The trial court held that the attorney-client privilege did not prevent beneficiaries from discovering pre-lawsuit communications and ordered Ringer to answer questions. The court of appeals initially granted Huie's motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus but later vacated its order, denying relief. Huie then sought mandamus relief from this Court, which stayed Ringer's deposition pending consideration.
Issue
The issue is whether the attorney-client privilege protects communications between a trustee and his or her attorney relating to trust administration from discovery by a trust beneficiary. Specifically, the court addresses whether a trustee's fiduciary duty of disclosure overrides the attorney-client privilege.
Holding
The court held that only the trustee, not the trust beneficiary, is the client of the trustee’s attorney, and therefore the attorney-client privilege protects communications between them. The beneficiary may not discover communications otherwise protected under Texas Rule of Civil Evidence 503. The court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate its discovery order and reconsider the privilege claims.
Rule
Under Texas Rule of Civil Evidence 503(b), the attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a client and attorney made for the purpose of facilitating professional legal services. While a trustee owes beneficiaries a fiduciary duty of full disclosure of material facts, this duty does not override the attorney-client privilege for confidential communications. A person cannot cloak a material fact with privilege by communicating it to an attorney, but the communication itself remains protected. The trustee, not the trust beneficiary or the trust itself, is considered the client of the trustee's attorney under Texas law. The attorney-work-product privilege also applies in the fiduciary-attorney relationship for work prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.