In Starwood Management LLC v. Swaim, the Dallas Court of Appeals recently discussed whether a claim for breach of fiduciary duty was actually a claim for professional negligence. Starwood Management LLC v. Don Swaim and Rose Walker, L.L.P., 2016 WL 865305 (March 7, 2016). In that case, Starwood alleged that its attorneys were negligent in representing Starwood and that the attorneys breached their fiduciary duty to Starwood by attempting to cover up their negligence. With respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, however, Starwood did not complain about any improper benefit that its attorneys received. Absent a complaint that the attorneys received an improper benefit, the court ruled that the client could not successfully assert a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Otherwise, the allegations did no more than restate the client’s claim for professional negligence. Accordingly, the court found the breach of fiduciary claim was barred by the anti-fracturing rule, which prevents plaintiffs from converting what are actually professional negligence claims against an attorney into other claims such as fraud, breach of contract, or breach of fiduciary duty. The anti-fracturing rule bars claims for breach of fiduciary duty against an attorney where the gravamen of the complaint focuses on the quality of the attorney’s representation. In contrast, properly asserted claims for an attorney’s breach of fiduciary duty “focus on whether the attorney obtained an improper benefit from representing the client and involve the integrity and fidelity of the attorney.”
