Originally published by David Coale.
Highland Capital sued the Looper Reed law firm, who represented a former employee in litigation with Highland, alleging that the firm committed several torts against Highland during the course of that representation. The Fifth Court affirmed the dismissal of those claims on immunity grounds: “[T]he actions themselves—acquiring documents from a client that are the subject of litigation against the client, reviewing the documents, copying the documents, retaining custody of the documents, analyzing the documents, making demands on the client’s behalf, advising a client to reject counter-demands, speaking about an opposing party in a negative light, advising a client on a course of action, and even threatening particular consequences such as disclosure of confidential information if demands are not met—are the kinds of actions that are part of the discharge of an attorney’s duties in representing a party in hard-fought litigation.” Highland Capital Management LP v. Looper Reed & McGraw, PC, No. 05-15-00055-CV (Jan. 14, 2016) (mem. op.) (applying Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Tex. 2015)).
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/1OE8Gmv
via Abogado Aly Website
No comments:
Post a Comment