Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Misreading Menetti: The Case Does Not Help You Avoid Liability For Your Own Fraud, Val D. Ricks
Misreading Menetti: The Case Does Not Help You Avoid Liability For Your Own Fraud, Val D. Ricks
St. Mary's Law Journal
Several decades ago, an incorrect legal idea surfaced in Texas jurisprudence: that business entity actors are immune from liability for fraud that they themselves commit, as if the entity is solely responsible. Though the Supreme Court of Texas has rejected that result several times, it keeps coming back. The most recent manifestation is as a construction of Texas’s unique veil-piercing statute. Many lawyers have suggested that this view of the veil-piercing statute originated in Menetti v. Chavers, a San Antonio Court of Appeals case decided in 1998. Menetti has in fact played a prominent role in the movement to …
Has The Fog Cleared - Attorney Work Product And The Attorney-Client Privilege: Texas's Complete Transition Into Full Protection Of Attorney Work In The Corporate Context., Fred A. Simpson
St. Mary's Law Journal
The following discussion in this Article fills the gaps in the substantive rules surrounding the attorney work product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege, thereby encouraging practitioners to utilize these tools more freely. Initially, the attorney-client privilege contemplated application only to individuals. As the rule developed in the United States, however, the scope of the privilege broadened until it included corporations. Since 1982, Texas has provided for the attorney-client privilege in Texas Rule of Civil Evidence 503.149. Notably, the Rule defined client in such a way as to include a corporation. Unlike the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine developed much …