We reported this confluence of Politics, Legal Malpractice and big estate probate work several weeks ago.  Defendants were  R. Christopher Bell, the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial nominee and a former U.S. congressman; Annette M. Henry; and their former firm, Bell & Henry in Houston.

Today, the Texas Lawyer Blog writes:  "former client’s breach-of-fiduciary duty claims can go to trial. In a June 24 decision, the 14th Court of Appeals held in Trousdale v. Henry, et al. that Lenieta Wylene Trousdale’s breach-of-fiduciary duty claims against the two attorneys and the firm were timely filed and are separate from her time-barred legal malpractice claims against all three defendants. The 129th District Court in Houston had granted summary judgment to Henry, Bell and the firm and dismissed Trousdale’s malpractice and breach-of-fiduciary duty claims. In a 2-1 decision, the 14th Court concluded that the trial court erred in applying the two-year statute of limitations to Trousdale’s breach-of-fiduciary duty claims, which include her claim that the defendants allegedly failed to tell her that her probate case and a separate fraud-and-conversion suit had been dismissed even though they continued to demand payment from her. The divided 14th Court panel affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing Trousdale’s malpractice claim but reversed the portion of the order dismissing the breach-of-fiduciary duty claims, which are controlled by a four-year statute of limitations. Justice Leslie Brock Yates joined Justice Wanda McKee Fowler in the majority opinion. Justice Eva Guzman wrote in her concurring and dissenting opinion that she would hold all of Trousdale’s claims are time-barred. "