DOCSLIB.ORG

The Nature of Fiduciary Liability in English Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Nature of Fiduciary Liability in English Law COVLJ 2007, 12(2), 1-19 Page 1 Cov. L.J. 2007, 12(2), 1-19 (Cite as: Cov. L.J. 2007, 12(2), 1-19) Coventry Law Journal 2007 Article THE NATURE OF FIDUCIARY LIABILITY IN ENGLISH LAW Sukhninder Panesar. Copyright (c) 2007 Sweet & Maxwell Limited and Contributors Cases: Sinclair Investment Holdings SA v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd (In Administrative Receivership) [2005] EWCA Civ 722; [2006] 1 B.C.L.C. 60 (CA (Civ Div)) Attorney General v Blake [1998] Ch. 439 (CA (Civ Div)) Subject: TRUSTS. Other related subjects: Equity. Torts Keywords: Breach of fiduciary duty; Fiduciary duty; Fiduciary relation- ship; Strict liability Abstract: Reflects on the debate surrounding key aspects of UK fidu- ciary law. Reviews the circumstances in which a fiduciary relation- ship may be found by the courts, whether an effective definition of " fiduciary relationship" exists and the extent to which such relation- ships may arise in a commercial context. Discusses the nature of fi- duciary liability and considers whether the strict application of the no-profit rule should be relaxed in certain circumstances. *2 Introduction Although the abuses of fiduciary relationship have long been one of the ma- jor concerns of equitable jurisdiction, the concept of a fiduciary has been far from clear. In Lac Minerals v International Corona Ltd [FN1] La Forest J. in the Supreme Court of Canada explained that '...there are few legal concepts more frequently invoked but less conceptually certain than that of the fidu- ciary relationship.' [FN2] In his seminal work Professor Finn described a fidu- ciary relationship as 'one of the most ill-defined, if not altogether mislead- ing terms in our law'. [FN3] It is, perhaps this lack of a comprehensive defin- ition that has made the law of fiduciaries not only an interesting area for legal scholars, but also a difficult one for those asked to define the circum- stances in which such a relationship will arise. English law categorizes cer- tain relationships as fiduciary per se. This is no more than saying that cer- tain relations are, by their very nature, fiduciary per se, that is, without further inquiry. Thus the settled categories of fiduciary relationships include solicitor and client [FN4]; agent and principal [FN5]; company director and the company [FN6], and trustee and beneficiary. [FN7] However, despite certain re- © 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. COVLJ 2007, 12(2), 1-19 Page 2 Cov. L.J. 2007, 12(2), 1-19 (Cite as: Cov. L.J. 2007, 12(2), 1-19) lationships being categorized as fiduciary per se, the list of fiduciary rela- tionships is not closed. The courts have, from time to time, admitted into the category of fiduciary relationships relationships that are not traditionally fiduciary. For example, in O'Sullivan v Management Agency & Music Ltd [FN8] a manager was held to owe fiduciary duties to a singer. On the facts a new and inexperienced pop singer had entered into a contract on grounds of undue influ- ence. The court held that, by virtue of his inexperience and the undue influ- ence asserted by the manager, the facts gave rise to a fiduciary relationship. This article explores three major aspects of fiduciary law that have been the subject matter of much debate in recent times. The first aspect examines the circumstances in which English law will find a fiduciary relationship. In particular, this article examines whether there is a comprehensive definition of a fiduciary relationship or *3 whether the finding of a fiduciary relation- ship is left to judicial discretion. The second aspect looks to the question of whether fiduciary relationships are capable of arising in commercial contexts. This has been a somewhat controversial question because the assumption appears to be that in commercial relationships the parties do not usually act in the best interests of the other. Thus, the question arises whether commercial rela- tionships are repugnant to fiduciary law. The final aspect addressed in this article is the extent to which the strict liability of fiduciary law is justi- fied in some of the fiduciary cases that arise in the modern law. Grounds for the Imposition of Fiduciary Relationship Although certain relationships are fiduciary per se, the real question is: when will the court find a fiduciary relationship in circumstances when it does not fit into the recognised categories of fiduciary relationships? The problem is that the English courts have not provided a universal definition of a fidu- ciary relationship, instead, the approach has been very much one of judicial flexibility. Academics have attempted to address the matter by identifying cer- tain factors that justify the imposition of a fiduciary relationship. For ex- ample, Sealy, after having reviewed the existing authorities, argued in 1962 that there were essentially four categories of fiduciary relationship. [FN9] He argued that the first two classes were reasonably capable of definition whilst the third and fourth classes were concerned with the application of certain presumptions that justified the imposition of fiduciary duties, thereby giving rise to a fiduciary relationship between the parties. The first category deals with the situation where one person has control over property for the benefit of another. Included in this category are persons such as trustees, guardians and bailiffs. Also included in this category is a donee of a power of appoint- ment in circumstances when that power is imposed in the office, for example, of trusteeship. [FN10] The second category deals with those situations where a claimant entrusts property to the defendant to perform a job in the best in- terests of the claimant. What is clear with Sealy's second classification is that there is no requirement that the defendant is actually dealing with prop- erty belonging to the plaintiff. Thus, whilst the majority of fiduciary rela- tionships will involve some control over property belonging to another, accord- ing to Sealy's classification it is not crucial that there be some control over © 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. COVLJ 2007, 12(2), 1-19 Page 3 Cov. L.J. 2007, 12(2), 1-19 (Cite as: Cov. L.J. 2007, 12(2), 1-19) property. A good example of a situation falling into this category is the de- cision of the *4 House of Lords in Reading v A-G. [FN11] In this case, a Brit- ish army sergeant stationed in Cairo allowed, by virtue of his uniform, civil- ian lorries carrying contraband goods to pass through checks points without any checks. The House of Lords held that the sergeant, by virtue of being employed by the Crown, stood in a fiduciary relationship to the Crown and thus was re- quired to account for the bribes he had received from the smugglers. Whilst Sealy's second category does not require that the fiduciary be in control of property, it is questionable whether this is correct in light of a recent judi- cial pronouncement that a fiduciary relationship requires some control over property belonging to another. [FN12] The third and fourth categories of Sealy's classification are a little more complicated and work on the presumption that certain events have occurred which call for the imposition of fiduciary duties; thereby giving rise to a fiduciary relationship. In the third category are situations where a person, who is already in a fiduciary relationship, and who is controlling property for anoth- er, then acquires property for himself as a result of his position as a fidu- ciary. Any new property acquired will be deemed as an accretion to the original property. Sealy gives as an example the seminal case of Keech v Sandford [FN13] where, as will be seen in more detail later, a trustee, having failed to renew a lease of a market for an infant beneficiary, renewed the lease personally. The court held that the new lease was to be held on the same terms and condi- tions as the original lease in favour of the infant. Another example which could be classified as falling into this category, although it could also fall into categories one and two, is the decision of the House of Lords in Boardman v Phipps. [FN14] On the facts of this case, a solicitor acting in connection with a trust advised the trustees, who already held shares in a private com- pany, that they should acquire more shares in the same company with a view to exerting greater control over it. The trustees refused to purchase further shares on the basis that the trust instrument did not authorise them to do so. After consultation with some of the trustees, the solicitor acquired a con- trolling interest in the company and made a substantial profit for himself, as well as restructuring the company and making profit for the beneficiaries. By a bare majority, the House of Lords held that the solicitor was required to ac- count for those profits made in his capacity as a fiduciary. Despite the ab- sence of dishonesty on his part, those profits had been made in his capacity as *5 a fiduciary and thus belonged to the beneficiaries. The decision of the House of Lords in Boardman v Phipps [FN15] illustrates the strict rule of equity that questions of good faith and honesty are generally not an issue in deciding whether the fiduciary is entitled to retain any property made in his capacity as a fiduciary. This matter is discussed in more detail below. The fi- nal classification deals with the imposition of a fiduciary relationship where one party exerts undue influence on another. The existence and possibility of undue influence is sufficient to generate a fiduciary relationship.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Many Fiduciary Duties Are There in Corporate Law?
    DO NOT DELETE 10/24/2010 5:49 PM HOW MANY FIDUCIARY DUTIES ARE THERE IN CORPORATE LAW? JULIAN VELASCO* ABSTRACT Historically, there existed two main fiduciary duties in corporate law, care and loyalty, and only violations of the duty of loyalty were likely to lead to liability. In the 1980s and 1990s, the Delaware Supreme Court breathed life into the duty of care, created a number of intermediate standards of review, elevated the duty of good faith to equal standing with care and loyalty, and announced a unified test for review of breaches of fiduciary duty. The law, which once seemed so straightforward, suddenly became elaborate and complex. In 2006, in the case of Stone v. Ritter, the Delaware Supreme Court rejected the triadic formulation and declared that good faith was a component of the duty of loyalty. In this and other respects, Delaware seems to be returning to a bifurcated understanding of the law of fiduciary duties. I believe that this is a mistake. This area of law is inherently complex and much too important to be oversimplified. The current academic debate on the issue focuses on whether there should be two duties or three. In this Article, I argue that the question is misleading and irrelevant, but that if it must be asked, the best answer is that there are five duties—one for each paradigm of enforcement. In defending this claim, I explain the true nature of fiduciary duties and provide a robust framework for the discussion, implementation, and development of the law. * Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School; B.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013-2014 Sheathing Restitution's Dagger 899 Under the Securities
    2013-2014 SHEATHING RESTITUTION’S DAGGER 899 UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT SHEATHING RESTITUTION’S DAGGER UNDER THE SECURITIES ACTS: WHY FEDERAL COURTS ARE POWERLESS TO ORDER DISGORGEMENT IN SEC ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS FRANCESCO A. DELUCA* “Beneath the cloak of restitution lies the dagger to compel the conscious wrongdoer to disgorge his gains.”1 Table of Contents I. First Principles: A Primer on the SEC’s Disgorgement Remedy, Classic Disgorgement, and the Equity Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts ..................................... 903 A. “Disgorgement” in the Securities Context .................. 903 B. Classic Disgorgement .................................................. 904 C. The Equity Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts ............ 907 II. Disgorgement’s History Under the Securities Acts ........... 908 III. An Analysis of Cavanagh ................................................... 911 A. Analysis of Allegedly Analogous Equitable Remedies ..................................................................... 912 B. Analysis of Binding Precedents .................................. 920 C. Analysis of Persuasive Precedents .............................. 926 IV. The SEC’s Disgorgement Remedy Is Not an Equitable Remedy ............................................................................... 930 V. Implications ....................................................................... 931 VI. Conclusion ......................................................................... 933 * Boston University School of Law (J.D. 2014); Roger
    [Show full text]
  • Fiduciary Law's “Holy Grail”
    FIDUCIARY LAW’S “HOLY GRAIL”: RECONCILING THEORY AND PRACTICE IN FIDUCIARY JURISPRUDENCE LEONARD I. ROTMAN∗ INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 922 I. FIDUCIARY LAW’S “HOLY GRAIL” ...................................................... 925 A. Contextualizing Fiduciary Law ................................................... 934 B. Defining Fiduciary Law .............................................................. 936 II. CERTAINTY AND FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION .......................................... 945 III. ESTABLISHING FIDUCIARY FUNCTIONALITY ....................................... 950 A. “Spirit and Intent”: Equity, Fiduciary Law, and Lifnim Mishurat Hadin ............................................................................ 952 B. The Function of Fiduciary Law: Sipping from the Fiduciary “Holy Grail” .............................................................. 954 C. Meinhard v. Salmon .................................................................... 961 D. Hodgkinson v. Simms ................................................................. 965 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 969 Fiduciary law has experienced tremendous growth over the past few decades. However, its indiscriminate and generally unexplained use, particularly to justify results-oriented decision making, has created a confused and problematic jurisprudence. Fiduciary law was never intended to apply to the garden
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Analysis of Corporate Fiduciary Law: Why Delaware Should Look Beyond the United States in Formulating a Standard of Care
    COMMENTS HENDRIK F. JORDAAN* A Comparative Analysis of Corporate Fiduciary Law: Why Delaware Should Look Beyond the United States in Formulating a Standard of Care Corporate internationalization has altered the corporate landscape irreversibly. Specifically, international trading in securities and cross-border corporate owner- ship, directorship, and management have increased substantially.' In 1995 multi- national companies invested a record $315 billion outside their own national Note: The American Bar Association grants permission to reproduce this article, or a part thereof, in any not-for-profit publication or handout provided such material acknowledges original publication in this issue of The InternationalLawyer and includes the title of the article and the name of the author. *Hendrik F. Jordaan is a J.D. Candidate (1997) at Southern Methodist University. He is editor-in- chief of Southern Methodist University School of Law Student Editorial Board for The International Lawyer. 1. See generally Richard M. Klapow, Foreign Investment Company Law in the United States: The Need for Change in a Global Securities Market, 14 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 411 (1988) (citing OECD REPORT, THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL MARKETS INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN SERVICES: SECURITIES (Paris, 1987)); Caroline A.A. Greene, International Securities Law Enforcement: Recent Advances in Assistance and Cooperation, 27 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 635 (1994); Arthur R. Pinto, The Internationalizationof the Hostile Takeover Market: Its Implicationsfor Choice of Law in Corporate and Securities Law, 16 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 55 (1990). This trend to expand corporate activities internationally is driven by the benefits of risk diversification, the enhanced profitability that interna- tional investment frequently offers, and technological improvements and reductions in regulatory constraints.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring the Duty to Monitor
    Corporate Governance WWW. NYLJ.COM MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2011 Monitoring the Duty to Monitor statements. As a result, the stock prices of Chinese by an actual intent to do harm” or an “intentional BY LOUIS J. BEVILACQUA listed companies have collapsed. Do directors dereliction of duty, [and] a conscious disregard have a duty to monitor and react to trends that for one’s responsibilities.”9 Examples of conduct HE SIGNIFICANT LOSSES suffered by inves- raise obvious concerns that are industry “red amounting to bad faith include “where the fidu- tors during the recent financial crisis have flags,” but not specific to the individual company? ciary intentionally acts with a purpose other than again left many shareholders clamoring to T And if so, what is the appropriate penalty for the that of advancing the best interests of the corpo- find someone responsible. Where were the direc- board’s failure to act? “Sine poena nulla lex.” (“No ration, where the fiduciary acts with the intent tors who were supposed to be watching over the law without punishment.”).3 to violate applicable positive law, or where the company? What did they know? What should they fiduciary intentionally fails to act in the face of have known? Fiduciary Duties Generally a known duty to act, demonstrating a conscious Obviously, directors should not be liable for The duty to monitor arose out of the general disregard for his duties.”10 losses resulting from changes in general economic fiduciary duties of directors. Under Delaware law, Absent a conflict of interest, claims of breaches conditions, but what about the boards of mort- directors have fiduciary duties to the corporation of duty of care by a board are subject to the judicial gage companies and financial institutions that and its stockholders that include the duty of care review standard known as the “business judgment had a business model tied to market risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiduciary Responsibility Ian Lanoff
    Fiduciary Responsibility Ian Lanoff www.groom.com November 7, 2005 Trust Law Evolution • Old English law recognized trusts • Family trusts have existed for centuries • Pension funds emerged in the 1900s • In 1974, ERISA codified trust law applicable to private pension plans 2 Public plans – not subject to ERISA • But ERISA is extremely influential • Public plan laws are modeled after ERISA: – Most impose duties of prudence and loyalty – Many have fiduciary conflict provisions – Many have party in interest rules • Public plans trustees look to ERISA for guidance • ERISA provides a model for best practices 3 Today's Roadmap 1. Who is a fiduciary? 2. The 4 primary fiduciary duties 3. Procedural prudence 4. ETIs 5. Fiduciary misconduct (i.e., conflicts) 6. Co-fiduciary liability 7. Party in interest violations 8. Prohibited transactions under the IRC 9. Plan expenses 10. What can internal auditors do? 4 Who is a fiduciary? 5 Why is it important to know if you are a fiduciary? • Fiduciaries must satisfy the "highest standard of conduct known to law" • Fiduciaries who violate those standards may become personally liable 6 Definition of fiduciary • ERISA has a “functional” definition: – You are a fiduciary if your job involves a “fiduciary function” (regardless of what is in your job description) – Even if your job does not involve a fiduciary function, you are a fiduciary if take on a fiduciary function (i.e., act outside your job) – Ministerial acts are not fiduciary functions • Applicable state law may be different 7 What is a fiduciary function?
    [Show full text]
  • Fiduciary Duties and Potential Liabilities of Directors and Officers of Financially Distressed Corporations
    LATHAM & WATKINS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 53rd AT THIRD, SUITE I000 885 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK I0022-4802 TELEPHONE (2I2) 906-I200 FAX (2I2) 75I-4864 Fiduciary Duties and Potential Liabilities of Directors and Officers of Financially Distressed Corporations This memorandum provides a general review of the duties and potential liabilities of directors and officers of financially distressed corporations.1 First, this memorandum discusses generally the fiduciary duties of directors in the context of financially healthy corporations and proceeds to describe how these duties shift in the context of financially distressed corporations. This memorandum then discusses briefly the duties and liabilities of non-director officers. Finally, the memorandum identifies certain statutory and other liabilities of both directors and officers that may be of particular relevance to officers and directors of financially distressed corporations. We have focused our discussion primarily on Delaware law because of the persuasiveness of Delaware court decisions in the area of corporate law. In our review, we have sought to identify the principal types of duties and liabilities that might be implicated when a corporation is facing financial difficulties. We have not attempted to conduct a comprehensive survey of every possible statutory or common law duty or liability that could conceivably exist. I. Summary A. Directors of solvent corporations have two basic “fiduciary” duties, the duty of care and the duty of loyalty, owed to the corporation itself and the shareholders. 1. Directors must act in good faith, with the care of a prudent person, and in the best interest of the corporation. 2. Directors must refrain from self-dealing, usurping corporate opportunities and receiving improper personal benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiduciary Duties
    Legal Affairs & Association and MLS Governance JANUARY 2018 FIDUCIARY DUTIES IN A NUTSHELL 1. Pursuant to state law, individuals serving on an association’s board of directors as directors or officers (“Association Leaders”) owe fiduciary duties to the association. 2. Fiduciary duties are owed to the association and not to the association’s members. 3. In general, fiduciary duties require Association Leaders to act in good faith, in the best interest of the association at all times, and to never make decisions based on furthering a personal or outside business interest. 4. Specifically, fiduciary duties may include the duties of care, confidentiality, loyalty, obedience, and accounting. 5. Association Leaders must avoid, disclose, and resolve any conflicts of interest prior to voting or otherwise participating in any deliberations concerning an association matter. NUTS AND BOLTS Fiduciary Duty is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “a duty of utmost good faith, trust, confidence, and candor owed by a fiduciary (such as a lawyer or corporate officer) to the beneficiary (such as a lawyer’s client or a shareholder); a duty to act with the highest degree of honesty and loyalty toward another person and in the best interests of the other person.” An Association Leader’s specific fiduciary duties may include: 1. Duty of Care - requires Association Leaders to exhibit honesty, act in good faith, and exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the discharge of their duties. Directors must attend, thoroughly prepare for, and actively engage in deliberations during meetings, and when necessary, seek advice from third-party experts, such as attorneys or accountants.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Fiduciary Liability Insurance and Why Do You Need It?
    What Is Fiduciary Liability Insurance and Why Do You Need It? Not knowing the answer could cost you everything. Fiduciary Liability Insurance Policies (FLIPs) are arguably one of the least Who is Considered a Fiduciary? What is Considered to be a Plan? understood insurance products on the market. However, it may be the Any individual included in the plan Employee benefit plans fall into only coverage that adequately protects document by name or title, along two broad categories - retirement people against liability for managing or with anyone who has discretionary plans and welfare plans. Retirement administering an employee benefit plan decision-making authority over the plans include a wide gamut of plans, - from top corporate executives that hire administration or management of a including but not limited to defined investment managers to payroll clerks plan or its assets may be considered benefit pension plans, profit sharing that process enrollment forms. With the a fiduciary under ERISA. Fiduciaries or savings plans such as 401(k)s, rising frequency of expensive and time commonly include the plan sponsor 403(b) plans, stock purchase plans, consuming litigation and regulatory efforts (which is typically the employer), and employee stock ownership in today’s evolving legal environment, the plan trustee and the plan plans (ESOPs). Welfare Plans include employers and plan fiduciaries are administrator, directors and officers medical, dental, life and disability increasingly being held accountable for (including when they appoint other plans. their actions (or failure to act) with respect fiduciaries or retain third party to employee benefit plans. Thus, FLIPs are service providers) and internal an important part of any comprehensive investment committees.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiduciary Remedy and Damages Survey
    ACTEC Fiduciary Litigation Committee Fiduciary Remedy and Damages Survey 50-STATE DAMAGES March 2018 In 2015, the Fiduciary Surcharge and Damages Sub-Committee distributed a twenty-six (26) question survey to ACTEC fellows regarding current case law, statutes and rules within each U.S. State on key issues relevant to financial remedies for trust and probate disputes. Separate topics related to damages and other remedies were presented to outline potential damage issues, followed by citations to language in Restatements, treatises, case law and other sources which may be followed by each State. Please direct any queries or comments regarding this 50-State Survey to Dom Campisi ([email protected]), Evans, Latham & Campisi, One Post Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA, 94104, (415) 421-0288. CONTRIBUTORS TO THE SURVEY Tracy Adamovich (Schiff Hardin)—New York Paul J. Barulich (Barulich Dugoni)—North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota Kevin Bender (McGuire Woods)—Virginia David Benedetto (Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease)—Indiana Gerald Carp (Schiff Hardin)—New York T. Jack Challis (Polsinelli Shughart)—Missouri Patricia H. Char (K&L Gates)—Washington 2 William E. Davis (Jackson & Campbell)—District of Columbia Jane Gorham Ditelberg (Northern Trust)—Illinois W. Birch Douglas III (McGuire Woods)—Virginia Bruce K. Dudley (Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs)—Kentucky Danielle P. Ferrucci (Shipman & Goodwin)—Connecticut Lisa Forbes (Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease)—New Hampshire Lynn Foster (Univ. of Ark. at Little Rock School of Law)—Arkansas Stanbery Foster, Jr. (Williams, Kastner & Gibbs)—Washington Adam Gaslowitz (Gaslowitz Frankel)—Georgia Philip J. Halley (Husch Blackwell)—Wisconsin Bryon W. Harmon (Shipman & Goodwin)—Connecticut Frank N. Ikard, Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Trust and Fiduciary Duty in the Early Common Law
    TRUST AND FIDUCIARY DUTY IN THE EARLY COMMON LAW DAVID J. SEIPP∗ INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1011 I. RIGOR OF THE COMMON LAW ........................................................... 1012 II. THE MEDIEVAL USE .......................................................................... 1014 III. ENFORCEMENT OF USES OUTSIDE THE COMMON LAW ..................... 1016 IV. ATTENTION TO USES IN THE COMMON LAW ..................................... 1018 V. COMMON LAW JUDGES AND LAWYERS IN CHANCERY ...................... 1022 VI. FINDING TRUST IN THE EARLY COMMON LAW ................................. 1024 VII. THE ATTACK ON USES ....................................................................... 1028 VIII. FINDING FIDUCIARY DUTIES IN THE EARLY COMMON LAW ............. 1034 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 1036 INTRODUCTION Trust is an expectation that others will act in one’s own interest. Trust also has a specialized meaning in Anglo-American law, denoting an arrangement by which land or other property is managed by one party, a trustee, on behalf of another party, a beneficiary.1 Fiduciary duties are duties enforced by law and imposed on persons in certain relationships requiring them to act entirely in the interest of another, a beneficiary, and not in their own interest.2 This Essay is about the role that trust and fiduciary duty played in our legal system five centuries ago and more.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Criminal Defense Lawyers Not Owe Fiduciary Duties to Guilty Clients - an Open Letter to Retired Professor Walter W
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 64 | Issue 3 Article 2 1999 Hey Walter: Do Criminal Defense Lawyers Not Owe Fiduciary Duties to Guilty Clients - An Open Letter to Retired Professor Walter W. Steele, Jr. Roy Ryden Anderson Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Roy Ryden Anderson, Hey Walter: Do Criminal Defense Lawyers Not Owe Fiduciary Duties to Guilty Clients - An Open Letter to Retired Professor Walter W. Steele, Jr., 64 J. Air L. & Com. 607 (1999) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol64/iss3/2 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. HEY WALTER: DO CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS NOT OWE FIDUCIARY DUTIES TO GUILTY CLIENTS? AN OPEN LETTER TO RETIRED PROFESSOR WALTER W. STEELE, JR.* Roy RYDEN ANDERSON** Dear Walter, FROM TIME to time, as you doddle in your retirement in the piney woods, you might recall that a few years ago we wrote a couple of articles together about contract law and an attorney's professional responsibility. I can't say the tasks were fun, legal writing being as it is so hard to do. But the many conversations we had along the way were a lot of fun, at least for me. I thought at the time I was learning a lot. Now I'm not so sure I did.
    [Show full text]