The Texas Supreme Court has reaffirmed one of the strongest immunity protections that civil litigators have by ruling that lawyers cannot be sued by third parties over statements they make in open court on behalf of clients.

The case, Youngkin v. Hines, stems from a property dispute over a 285-acre tract of land in Brazos County. In that case, Buetta and Rajen Scott hired attorney Bill Youngkin to file an action seeking a declaration that they were the rightful owners of that property. At the same time, another family heir to the land, Billy G. Hines, opposed them in the litigation.

According to the decision, during trial, Youngkin negotiated a settlement with Hines' attorney and then recited the terms of the agreement into the record pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 11. Youngkin announced that Hines would convey his undivided surface interest in the 285 acres but would retain his mineral interests in the property. In return, Youngkin stated his clients would convey one-half interest in a 45-acre subsection of the property so the family heirs would have 100 percent ownership of that property. Lawyers for both parties formalized that agreement.

But Hines later alleged that the Scotts, with Youngkin's assistance, deeded their interest in the 45-acre subsection to Curtis Capps, another client of Youngkin's, as trustee. Hines claimed Capps, while represented by Youngkin, sought a declaratory judgment that Capps personally owned a portion of the 45-acre subsection.

Hines then sued the Scotts and Capps for fraud, alleging that they had conspired to deprive him of real property by using the settlement agreement to obtain interest in contested property with no intention of complying with the agreement. Hines later added Youngkin as a defendant, alleging that the attorney knowingly participated in a fraudulent scheme to deprive Hines of the disputed property.

Youngkin moved to dismiss the Hines suit under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which allows trial courts to quickly throw out cases that are based on a person's right to speak, petition or associate. He also raised the affirmative defense of attorney immunity, arguing it shielded him from liability to a nonclient for actions taken in open court while representing a client.

The trial court denied Youngkin's motion to dismiss, which he appealed to Waco's 10th Court of Appeals. And while the 10th Court held that the TCPA applied to the claims against Youngkin, it ultimately concluded that Youngkin had failed to prove his attorney-immunity defense. Youngkin appealed the immunity aspect of the ruling to the Texas Supreme Court.

In its decision, the high court affirmed the appellate court in finding that the TCPA protections applied to Hines's claims against Youngkin because the text of the act “is intended to safeguard the constitutional rights of speech, petition, and association (without foreclosing on the ability to bring meritorious lawsuits),” wrote Justice Debra Lehrmann.

But Lehrmann went further and reversed the appellate court on the immunity point, concluding that the attorney-immunity doctrine applied “forcefully” to the claims against Youngkin, noting that the rule exists to promote loyal and aggressive representation by attorneys without the fear of personal liability.

“Hines's fraud and conspiracy claims are premised on his understanding of the Rule 11 agreement—that he would receive complete ownership of the 45-acre subsection—being the correct one, but Youngkin and his clients do not concede to that interpretation,” Lehrmann wrote. “And, regardless of the intent underlying the parties' settlement, Youngkin's complained-of actions were part of his responsibility to his clients, even if done improperly.”

“It would strain the very existence of settlement agreements if a party could hold an opposing attorney liable for subsequently taking an action or position at odds with that party's understanding of the agreement,” Lehrmann added. “Even more concerning is that such a practice could impute a guarantee of the client's performance onto the attorney merely because he played a role in negotiating his client's agreement.”

The decision reverses the 10th Court's ruling and remands the case back to the trial court for further consideration.

Ty Clevenger, a New York solo practitioner who represents Youngkin on appeal, is pleased with the decision because it protects litigators from liability for merely doing their jobs.

“It's a critical case because otherwise lawyers could literally be sued for reading a settlement agreement into the record,” Clevenger said.

“He did nothing wrong,” Clevenger said of Youngkin. “He simply read a settlement agreement and the opposing party decided later that his clients did not comply with the settlement agreement. So they assumed that he thought the clients would never comply, so it must have been his fault.''

Angus E. “Andy” McSwain, a lawyer with Waco's Fulbright Winniford who represents Hines, did not respond to a request for comment.