613 So. 2d 817 - Tyson v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... An attorney must deal with the client in a manner of “utmost honesty, good faith, fairness, integrity, and fidelity....” 7A C.J.S. Attorney & Client § 234 (1980). One respected treatise states: The breach of fiduciary obligations, sometimes characterized as “constructive” fraud, has been appropriately recognized as an action in tort, not contract. The tort constitutes a wrong which is distinct and independent from professional negligence but still [comprises] legal malpractice. Some courts have suggested the standard of care encompasses the fiduciary obligations. More correctly, other courts have referred to fiduciary obligations as setting a standard of “conduct,” as distinguished from the standard of “care” which pertains to the requisite skills and knowledge.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Victory Lane Productions, LLC v. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP · 771 So. 2d 924 - Memphis Hardwood Flooring Co. v. Daniel

2. “is fiduciary in nature. In the present context its breach may take one of two forms. The first involves situations in which the attorney obtains an unfair personal advantage, such as acquiring property from a client; the second involves situations in which the attorney or other clients have interests adverse to the client in question. We have recently defined the lawyer’s duty of loyalty to include a duty to: safeguard the client’s confidences and property, avoid conflicting interests that might impair the representation, and not employ adversely to the clients powers conferred by the client-lawyer relationship. [Singleton, 580 So.2d at 1245 ].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. v. Seay · 8 So. 3d 147 - Waggoner v. Williamson

3. “Breach of the duty of loyalty ... is characterized as “constructive fraud” because proof of intent is irrelevant; thus, the elements of actual fraud, duress, or coercion do not enter into the analysis.... The objective standard rests on this rationale: Because a breach of loyalty injures both the client’s interests and the legal profession’s integrity, the gravity of the harm cannot be cured by good faith. Any transaction in which an attorney may have taken undue advantage of the client is voidable. The transaction is ... “presumptively fraudulent.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Forbes v. St. Martin · Victory Lane Productions, LLC v. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP