## Facts

- Ruben Perez, a truck driver for Valley Coca-Cola Bottling Company, was involved in a catastrophic crash after alleged brake failure, colliding with a school bus and causing multiple deaths and injuries; Perez was hospitalized.
- Valley Coca-Cola retained the law firm Kirk & Carrigan and its attorneys to represent the company arising out of the accident.
- While Perez was in the hospital, the attorneys visited him and took a sworn statement about the accident.
- Perez and his father provided affidavit testimony that the attorneys told Perez they were “his lawyers too,” that they would help him, and that what he said would be kept confidential/secret.
- After obtaining the statement, the attorneys had no further contact with Perez and arranged for separate criminal defense counsel to represent him in the criminal matter.
- The attorneys later provided Perez’s sworn statement to the district attorney without Perez’s knowledge or consent and without his criminal defense counsel’s consent.
- Perez was indicted for involuntary manslaughter but was later acquitted.
- Perez sued the attorneys and their firm for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and related claims based on the alleged misuse and disclosure of his statement.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, and Perez appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the attorneys’ statements and conduct in the hospital created an attorney–client relationship or other fiduciary relationship with Perez, despite their retention by the employer.
2. Whether the attorneys owed Perez a duty of confidentiality based on their representations and Perez’s reliance, and whether disclosure of the sworn statement to prosecutors could constitute a breach.
3. Whether the defendants were entitled to summary judgment, or whether genuine issues of material fact required trial.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held Perez’s summary-judgment evidence raised fact issues on whether an attorney–client relationship or fiduciary relationship existed.
- The court held the evidence also raised fact issues on whether the defendants breached duties of confidentiality by providing the statement to the prosecutor without Perez’s consent.
- Because these matters turned on disputed facts and competing inferences, the defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- An attorney–client relationship may be implied from a lawyer’s conduct and a person’s reasonable belief that the lawyer is acting as counsel; a formal retainer or fee arrangement is not required.
- When a lawyer’s words or actions reasonably induce reliance, fiduciary duties may arise, including duties of loyalty and confidentiality.
- Express assurances of confidentiality can support a claim that the lawyer assumed obligations to the individual who provided information, even when the lawyer was initially retained to represent another client.
- On summary judgment, courts must view evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant; if reasonable factfinders could differ on relationship formation or breach, the case must proceed to trial.  

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that Perez’s affidavits describing assurances of representation and secrecy created triable fact disputes over whether the attorneys assumed fiduciary or attorney–client duties to him and whether turning his sworn statement over to prosecutors breached those duties, making summary judgment improper.


Perez v. Kirk & Carrigan, 822 S.W.2d 261 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1991)