21. PEREZ v. KIRK & CARRIGAN 822 S.W.2d 261 (Tex. Ct. App. 1991)
Facts
Ruben Perez (plaintiff) was a truck driver for Valley Coca-Cola Bottling Company. One day, he was involved in an accident with a school bus that resulted in the deaths of 21 children. While Perez was hospitalized, the employer’s attorneys, Kirk & Carrigan (defendants), approached him, assured him that they were also his attorneys, told him that their discussions would be confidential, and took his statement. However, the defendants later ceased contact with Perez and arranged for another attorney to represent him. The defendants then disclosed Perez’s statement without his consent, negatively affecting the criminal proceedings against him. Perez filed suit against the defendants under several causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis that no genuine issue of material fact existed.
Issue
Does an attorney-client relationship exist when the individual did not personally pay the attorneys, but the employer did?
Rules
E.F. Hutton & Co. v. Brown, 305 F.Supp. 371, 388 (S.D.Tex.1969)
The relationship does not depend upon the payment of a fee, but may exist as a result of rendering services gratuitously.
Application
The plaintiff argued that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty by disclosing his confidential statement without consent. The defendants contended that no fiduciary duty existed because the plaintiff had not personally sought legal advice and because the employer rather than the plaintiff paid for their services. The court agreed with the plaintiff, reasoning that an attorney-client relationship may arise from the provision of legal services and does not depend on payment of a fee (E.F. Hutton & Co. v. Brown). The court further noted that damages are not required to bring such a claim, as the experience of mental anguish may be sufficient, and that the defendants’ argument of malicious prosecution was groundless.
Holding
An attorney-client relationship can exist even when the client does not pay for the legal services.
Conclusion
Reversed and remanded.
Feedback
This case has broadened the scope of the attorney client relationship. The case emphasizes that an attorney client relationship is not formed based on the payment of legal fees, but on the lawyer’s rendering of legal services. In this case, the bus driver was not a direct client of the firm and did not pay any fees, but he gave statements believing that the firm would represent him, as the attorneys had acted as if they were. From previous cases, the court has consistently ruled that an attorney client relationship is formed not from formal contractual agreements, but from circumstances that lead a person to reasonably believe they are being represented by an attorney.