Shoving Scheffler out of the Courthouse: The Louisiana Supreme Court Prohibits a Cause of Action for the Breach of a Fiduciary Duty Between Cocounsels

Recent Development by P.J. Kee

Shortly after the Times-Picayune published an article documenting the Louisiana Supreme Court's suspension of the law license of James G. Perdigao, who was corporate counsel for Boomtown Casino Westbank (Boomtown) and a partner of the law firm of Adams and Reese, LLP (Adams and Reese), Boomtown terminated the employment of Perdigao's cocounsel, William J. Scheffler, III, on October 25, 2004. Scheffler's permanent representation of Boomtown began on November 1, 2002, when Boomtown, with Perdigao's consent, formally agreed that Scheffler would act as Boomtown's defense counsel for personal injury actions. According to the terms of this agreement, Boomtown would pay Scheffler a fixed, monthly fee, and Scheffler would work closely with, and report to, Perdigao. Because Boomtown terminated Scheffler's representation due in large part to the publication of Perdigao's misconduct, Scheffler filed a petition in a Louisiana district court on December 29, 2005, seeking various damages from both Perdigao and Adams and Reese.

In response to Scheffler's petition, Adams and Reese filed a peremptory exception of no cause of action. After a hearing on this exception, the district court sustained Adams and Reese's peremptory exception of no cause of action to all of Scheffler's claims against Adams and Reese except for the claim of vicarious liability for Perdigao's alleged breach of a fiduciary duty. Before the district court could try this claim on the merits, Adams and Reese applied to the Louisiana Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for a supervisory writ, asking the court to intervene and to consider the validity of the district court's decision to overrule the exception as to the breach of a fiduciary duty. In response, a sharply divided panel denied the application. Thereafter, Adams and Reese applied to the Louisiana Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. On November 9, 2006, the court granted certiorari to determine whether the district court was correct in ruling that Scheffler sufficiently pled a cause of action for the breach of a fiduciary duty. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that Scheffler did not sufficiently plead a cause of action for the breach of fiduciary duty and that, as a matter of public policy, he could not amend his petition because a cause of action for the breach of fiduciary duty between cocounsels concerning prospective fees does not exist. Scheffler v. Adams & Reese, LLP, 06-1774, pp. 15-16 (La. 2/22/07); 950 So. 2d 641, 653.


About the Author

P.J. Kee. J.D. candidate 2009, Tulane University School of Law; B.A. 2004, Louisiana State University.

Citation

82 Tul. L. Rev. 2481 (2008)