We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Attempting to reconnect
In re Frank Jackson
Analysis
Attorney Immunity Bars Tortious Interference Claims Against General Counsel Advising on CEO Termination
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals granted mandamus relief to Frank Jackson, a general counsel sued for tortious interference with a former CEO's $350 million employment contract, holding that advising a multi-billion-dollar company on terminating its CEO falls squarely within the attorney-immunity defense. The court rejected the plaintiff's attempt to recharacterize Jackson's conduct as "business advice" rather than legal representation, emphasizing that the immunity analysis turns on whether the conduct is "the kind" attorneys undertake while discharging professional duties, not on how a nonclient labels it.
Dissent Argues Business Court Correctly Applied Rule 91a Standard in Attorney Immunity Case
In a dissent from a mandamus proceeding reviewing Business Court Division 11B's denial of a Rule 91a motion to dismiss, an appellate judge argues that the majority improperly lowered the threshold for dismissal when evaluating attorney immunity as a defense to tortious interference claims. Taking the plaintiff's allegations as true—that Jackson sought to oust Reynolds's CEO to secure the position for himself—the dissent concludes the Business Court properly denied dismissal because the pleadings preclude any finding that Jackson's conduct qualifies for attorney immunity as a matter of law.