Interesting. Can charging for a law firm librarian's research establish that the firm is engaged in an attorney-client relationship, subjecting it to conflicts-of-interest liability? The Texas Supreme Court says no, at least in the Harry Joe case. Harry Joe was a city council member and an attorney in private practice. Not an uncommon dual occupation.
Joe used his private law firm's library services to research a real estate matter for the council. Joe billed the city for the librarian's retrieval of case law, but did not bill for his own services. Joe-the-city-council-member then voted for a development moratorium, against the interest of one of his law firm clients - a real estate developer. The client sued Joe, claiming he had a conflict of interest.
The Texas State Supreme Court ruled in Joe's favor last week - no conflict of interest.
Lots of issues were raised: immunity, state professional conduct rules...but the library research discussion is particularly interesting:
[The real estate developer] points to a Jenkens billing statement titled "Gen. Expense Reimbursement-H. Joe" as evidence that Joe and the City had an attorney-client relationship. The statement, which 239 JV argues was submitted to the City for payment, is an administrative reimbursement for the librarian's retrieval of requested case law and did not include any charges for Joe's services. Thus, Joe's motion for summary judgment establishes that Joe's research was in preparation for a city council meeting, was not part of legal services provided to the City of Irving, and does not create an attorney-client relationship between Joe and the City as a matter of law.
Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, NO. 02-0218 , SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS September 3, 2004
The appellate decision below came out the other way - a possible conflict of interest. Yet even in that decision, the discussion of the law library research was not considered enough to establish a conflict.
From Appellate Court decison:
[The real estate developer] argues that by performing research in J&G's law library, Joe somehow departed from his scope of authority as a councilperson and created an attorney-client relationship with the City of Irving. This argument ignores the plain duties of a councilman. Researching aspects of issues related to significant votes qualifies as responsible participation in the representative process. Indeed, the fact that expenses related to the legal research were invoiced and paid by the City of Irving as reimbursement for Joe's expenses related to his work as a council member evidences his authority to perform such research in that role.
Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture v. Joe LEXSEE 2001 tex app 7752, No. 05-98-01775-CV COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FIFTH DISTRICT, DALLAS 2001 Tex. App. 7752 November 20, 2001
Comments