Huie v. DeShazo
922 S.W.2d 920 · Texas Supreme Court · 1996
Facts
Harvey K. Huie served as executor of his deceased wife's estate and trustee for three testamentary trusts benefiting their daughters. One daughter, Melissa Huie Chenault, sued Huie in February 1993, alleging breach of fiduciary duties, including mismanagement, self-dealing, and conversion of trust property. Huie's attorney, David Ringer, had represented Huie in his trustee capacity since his wife's death, initially compensated from trust funds, then personally by Huie after the lawsuit began. During Ringer's deposition, he refused to answer questions about trust management, citing 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 ruled that the attorney-client and attorney-work-product privileges did not apply to pre-lawsuit communications between Huie and Ringer relating to the trust. 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 its consideration.
Issue
The legal question is whether the attorney-client privilege protects communications between a trustee and their attorney regarding trust administration from discovery by a trust beneficiary. It also addresses whether the attorney-work-product privilege applies in this context.
Holding
The Court held that only the trustee, not the trust beneficiary, is the client of the trustee's attorney, despite the trustee's fiduciary duty. Therefore, the beneficiary cannot discover communications between the trustee and attorney that are otherwise protected under Texas Rule of Civil Evidence 503. The Court conditionally granted a writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate its discovery order and reconsider Huie's privilege claims.
Rule
Under Texas Rule of Civil Evidence 503(b), the attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications made between a client and attorney for the purpose of facilitating professional legal services. This privilege applies to the trustee-attorney relationship, meaning the trustee is the client, not the trust beneficiary or the trust itself. While a trustee has a fiduciary duty to disclose material facts to beneficiaries, this duty does not override the attorney-client privilege for confidential communications, nor can a material fact be cloaked by merely communicating it to an attorney. The court declined to create an exception to Rule 503 for fiduciaries, emphasizing the importance of a trustee's ability to consult freely with counsel. The attorney-work-product privilege also applies to work prepared in anticipation of litigation in this context.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.