Reported Cases

K&P represented the claimants in the following reported cases, all of which were eventually resolved:

  • Vinson & Elkins v. Moran, 946 S.W.2d 381, 411-413 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, writ dis’d by agr.). In this case, although certain claims were reversed and rendered by the appellate court in favor of Vinson & Elkins, the remainder of the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the appellate court’s opinion, which included that court’s holding that the evidence of the law firm’s multiple conflicts of interest that were not disclosed to its clients, and evidence that the law firm placed its own interests above those of its clients, supported a jury verdict finding that the firm had, in addition to other tortious conduct, breached its fiduciary duty to its clients.
  • In re Legal Econometrics, Inc., 191 B.R. 331, 337-45, 348 (Bankr. N.D. Texas 1995), affirmed in part, remanded in part, modified in part, 1997 WL 560617 (N.D. Tex. 1997), affirmed after remand, 1999 WL 304564 (N.D. Tex. 1999), appeal dism’d by agr. In this case, a bankruptcy court found (and this finding was upheld by the district court) that Akin, Gump, Straus, Hauer & Feld and several of its lawyers were not acting solely in the interest of their client in a corporate reorganization scheme, but rather on behalf of a third party who was also their client; that such conduct was a direct conflict of interest that was not properly disclosed; and that the consequence of the law firm’s actions was to give the third party control and ownership over the client’s property to which the third party was not entitled. The court also found that the law firm’s and lawyer’s conduct in this regard constituted breaches of fiduciary duty by the law firm and its lawyers to the plaintiff.
  • Burnap v. Linnartz, 38 S.W.3d 612 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, 2000, no pet.) In this case, the plaintiff’s claims rested upon the lawyer’s and his law firm’s failure to advise the client, the member of a partnership, that they did not represent him, or alternatively, if they did, that they had a conflict of interest in doing so. Id. at 612. Summary judgment in favor of the attorneys was granted by the trial court on two different occasions in this lawsuit. On each occasion, the summary judgment was reversed as to most of the plaintiff’s claims and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate opinion. See also Burnap v. Linnartz, 914 S.W.2d 142 (Tex. App. – San Antonio, 1995, writ denied).