The Dallas Court of Appeals recently addressed the anti-fracturing rule in Parsons v. Queenan, 2017 WL 360673 (Jan. 23, 2017). The anti-fracturing rule prevents plaintiffs from converting negligence claims against an attorney (legal malpractice) into other claims such as fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, or DTPA violations. Id. at *3. The rule was created to prevent legal malpractice plaintiffs from “opportunistically transforming a claim that sounds only in negligence into other claims” to avail themselves of longer limitations periods, less onerous proof requirements, or other tactical advantages. Id. at *3, citing Beck v. Law Offices of Edwin J. (Ted) Terry, Jr., P.C., 284 S.W.3d 416, 427 (Tex. App.–Austin 2009, no pet.). This rule doesn’t prevent plaintiffs from suing lawyers for fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, etc. However, if the gravamen of the complaint focuses on the quality or adequacy of the attorney’s representation, the rule will be applied to limit the claim to negligence (legal malpractice). Id. at *3.
