Brief for the Defendants-Appellees - ARGUMENT

ARGUMENT

I. Mr. Burrow and his law firm conferred a benefit on Ms. Arce before their breach of fiduciary duty and therefore Ms. Arce should be required to pay for the value of that benefit.

Fee forfeiture is a form of equitable relief awarded when a fiduciary breaches his equitable duties. Russell v. Truitt, 554 S.W.2d 948, 955 (Tex. Civ. App.—Ft. Worth 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.). As such, the court should consider equitable principles such as quantum meruit and fairness in determining the amount of fee to be forfeited. Mr. Burrow conferred a benefit on Ms. Arce before breach and should be compensated for that benefit according to quantum meruit. Not requiring her to pay for those pre-breach benefits would constitute a windfall. Additionally, attorneys do more than just represent their clients; they also help to make law for the rest of society. Aside from benefiting the client, an attorney should be compensated for benefiting society as a whole.