Pitts & Collard, L.L.P. v. Schechter
369 S.W.3d 301
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Mass tort referral arrangement: Pitts & Collard referred ~1,000 cases to Schechter via nine letters with 60/40 fee split.
- Client-consent mechanism: a joint client letter sought consent to fee-sharing, tying to the nine-letter agreements.
- Issues arose over sharing of work and fees; Schechter continued representing clients after dispute.
- Pitts asserted breach of contract and other claims; Schechter counterclaimed and alleged defamation/abuse of process.
- Trial produced mixed verdicts; several contract claims affirmed, some defamation/abuse-of-process claims reversed or narrowed on appeal.
- Protective order governed confidential video of Pitts’s city-council remarks; Pitts filed the video without seal, leading to abuse-of-process concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ambiguity of nine letter agreements | Pitts argues the writings are unambiguous and do not require sharing work | Schechter argues the agreements are ambiguous and parol evidence admissible | Ambiguity found; parol evidence permitted to interpret contracts |
| Pitts first breach of nine letter agreements | Pitts did not abandon cases; breach not proven | Pitts stopped sharing work; breach occurred first | Evidence legally and factually supports Pitts’s breach first |
| Existence of joint venture and duty of good faith | Conceivably a joint venture with duties existed | No joint venture without a loss-sharing agreement | No joint venture; no duty of good faith/fair dealing arose from JV |
| Limitations on contract claim | Contract claims timely; continued performance tolled separation | Accrual at time of breach; four-year limit applies | Contract claims barred to the extent accrued before four years prior to suit; n.o.v. upheld on limitations |
| Defamation/abuse of process—limitations and malice standards | City-council defamation timely revived by 16.069; professional-colleague malice proven | City-council claim time-barred; malice burden met for professional claims; abuse-of-process damages improper without special damages | City-council defamation barred; professional-colleague defamation supported (malice present); abuse-of-process damages lack sufficient special damages; overall affirmed in part and reversed in part |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard; reviewing evidence in light of the record)
- Dell Computer Corp. v. Rodriguez, 394 F.3d 135 (5th Cir. 2005) ( accrual in continuing-relationship contexts (comparison))
- Knowles v. Wright, 288 S.W.3d 136 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (joint-venture standards; four-element test)
- Swinehart v. Stubbeman, McRae, Sealy, Laughlin & Browder, Inc., 48 S.W.3d 865 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (existence of joint venture; review of evidence)
- Arthur v. Grimmett, 319 S.W.3d 711 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2009) (loss-sharing absence defeats joint-venture conclusion)