Dallas Breach of Fiduciary Duty Attorney
The Dallas breach of fiduciary duty lawyers at Roquemore Skierski PLLC prosecute and defend fiduciary claims for privately held companies, emerging enterprises, and owner-operated businesses across Dallas, Collin, Denton, and Tarrant Counties. This is not an ordinary commercial dispute. It alleges that someone trusted with discretion used it for themselves, and Texas answers with remedies reaching past a contract claim.
The exposure runs both directions. An officer, director, partner, or managing member faces personal liability the corporate form does not shield, which is why a fiduciary claim is often the leverage point in a larger dispute.
What a Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Requires Under Texas Law
A claim for breach of fiduciary duty in Texas requires a fiduciary duty, a breach of that duty, causation, and damages. First United Pentecostal Church of Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214, 220 (Tex. 2017); ERI Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Swinnea, 318 S.W.3d 867, 873 (Tex. 2010). Suits alleging breach of fiduciary duties by insiders are generally filed in the civil district courts of Dallas County, or in the Northern District of Texas where the parties are diverse.
The first element does most of the work. Not every relationship involving trust and confidence rises to a fiduciary one. Meyer v. Cathey, 167 S.W.3d 327, 330 (Tex. 2005). A commercial contract does not by itself create fiduciary obligations. Schlumberger Technology Corp. v. Swanson, 959 S.W.2d 171, 177 (Tex. 1997). Claims that look strong on the facts often fail at this threshold.
Where duties exist, the entity form is usually the source. Partners owe a duty of loyalty and a duty of care to the partnership and the other partners, and must act in good faith and as they reasonably believe serves the partnership. Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code sections 152.204, 152.205, and 152.206. Officers and directors owe their duties to the corporation rather than to individual shareholders. Ritchie v. Rupe, 443 S.W.3d 856, 888 through 891 (Tex. 2014). The Dallas Court of Appeals frames the elements as a relationship, a breach, and injury to the plaintiff or benefit to the defendant. Jones v. Blume, 196 S.W.3d 440, 447 (Tex. App. Dallas 2006, pet. denied).
Governing documents now carry more weight than they did. S.B. 29, passed by the 89th Legislature in 2025, amended Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code sections 152.002(e) and 101.401, expanding how far a limited partnership or company agreement may restrict or eliminate duties. The operating agreement is the first document to read, not the last.
How These Disputes Arise in Closely Held Companies
A breach is rarely exposed by one dramatic act. A pattern becomes visible instead: distributions slow while officer compensation rises, or a related-party vendor appears in the ledger. Among Dallas companies, the problem usually surfaces after a records request or a change in management.
An officer approves a transaction with an entity he controls without disclosing it, which is classic self-dealing. A managing member takes a deal belonging to the company, implicating the corporate opportunity doctrine. A controlling group withholds distributions while paying itself in salary. Business fraud, unfair competition, and misappropriation claims often travel with these facts.
Remedies, Damages, and Filing Deadlines
Texas offers a wider remedial range than contract law does, which is often why the claim is worth pleading. Beyond actual damages, courts may order disgorgement of profits and forfeiture of consideration paid to the fiduciary. ERI Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Swinnea, 318 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. 2010). Constructive trust and an accounting are available in appropriate cases; exemplary damages are governed by Tex. Civ. Prac. and Rem. Code chapter 41.
Where assets are still moving, injunctive relief usually matters more than the damages model. Temporary restraining orders and temporary injunctions are governed by Tex. R. Civ. P. 680 through 689, and the two are best evaluated together.
Deadlines bind both sides. Claims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud carry a four year limitations period running from accrual. Tex. Civ. Prac. and Rem. Code section 16.004(a)(4) and (a)(5). When accrual occurs in a concealed self-dealing case is itself litigated.
Defending Against a Fiduciary Claim
In the North Texas courts, a defense usually starts with the relationship rather than the conduct. If no duty existed, the claim fails however the transaction looked, and Meyer v. Cathey and Schlumberger frame that argument.
Where a duty did exist, the governing documents, the business judgment rule, and the decision record carry the defense. Transactions involving interested directors and officers are addressed in Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code section 21.418. Board minutes and a contemporaneous record of the conflict persuade far more when they were created before the dispute than after.
Why Dallas Businesses Choose Roquemore Skierski PLLC for Fiduciary Duty Litigation
The Dallas breach of fiduciary duty attorneys at Roquemore Skierski PLLC bring decades of Texas practice to claims on both sides of the docket. They appear in the district courts of Dallas, Collin, Denton, and Tarrant Counties and in the Northern and Eastern Districts of Texas, and several are Dallas natives who have tried cases here for decades.
Clients include franchise groups; technology companies and startups; and financial services firms. These claims rarely arrive alone, and the same Dallas fiduciary litigation attorneys handle the partnership, shareholder, and injunction claims that come with them. Where a matter needs expertise the practice does not hold in house, usually forensic accounting or business valuation, the practice retains and manages those experts directly.
How our team resolves business disputes, from start to finish.
We review the governing documents, build a factual timeline, gather key evidence, confirm deadlines, and align the legal approach with the client's business objectives.
We send a strategic demand letter identifying the dispute, proposing solutions, and setting a deadline. When assets or trade secrets are at risk, we seek immediate court relief to prevent further harm.
We pursue negotiation or mediation where productive, while continuing to preserve evidence and develop the case so leverage remains intact if settlement efforts do not succeed.
If a resolution is not reached, we file suit, use focused motions and discovery to narrow the dispute, present the case at trial, and enforce any favorable judgment.
An investment advisor went silent after taking a $50,000 investment. We brought fraud and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims and obtained judgment for principal paid, the promised return on investment, and attorneys’ fees.
A homeowner hired a contractor for renovations. The contractor accepted the deposit and vanished. We pursued the claim and recovered the full deposit plus additional damages.
A partner excluded from formation paperwork discovered other partners had been charging personal expenses to a business credit card. We sent demand, obtained a temporary restraining order, and secured return of the diverted funds.
Startup partners secured a loan together; one partner then diverted the funds to a separate company he controlled and cut off communication. We pursued recovery of the diverted proceeds and breach claims.
More Dallas practice areas.
Yes, where a fiduciary relationship exists. Whether the relationship qualifies is the threshold question. First United Pentecostal Church of Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214, 220 (Tex. 2017).
Proof of the relationship, the duty owed, conduct that breached it, and injury to the plaintiff or benefit to the defendant. Jones v. Blume, 196 S.W.3d 440, 447 (Tex. App. Dallas 2006, pet. denied).
Undisclosed self-dealing, diverting a corporate opportunity, misappropriating company funds or confidential information, and withholding material information from co-owners.
Four years from the date the cause of action accrues. Tex. Civ. Prac. and Rem. Code section 16.004(a)(5).