Texas Business Court Decision – December 17, 2025

No. 25-BC08A-0014   Michael D. Crain, etc. v. William “Will” Northern, et al. (Eighth Division, Judge Bullard, Author)

Legal Malpractice and Fractured Malpractice-Based Claims.  This case arises out of a broken business relationship between Crain and William Northern; Crain brought suit individually and on behalf of his business entities,  for convenience sake called “Northern Crain.” Crain alleged several claims against defendant Goldthwaite, including fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice, and claims against both Goldthwaite and William Northern for fraud, quantum meruit, and conspiracy. As a threshold matter, Goldthwaite asked the court to find he did not have an attorney client relationship with Crain’s “Northern Crain” business entities. Held: the legal malpractice and fractured malpractice claims against Goldthwaite are improperly before the court, and all claims against him are dismissed without prejudice.

1. The Texas Business Court does not have jurisdiction over claims for legal malpractice, regardless of whether the claim may otherwise be within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction.
2. Texas has an anti-fracturing rule which has long prohibited splitting a single malpractice claim into multiple causes of action. That does not necessarily prohibit a plaintiff from pursuing both a negligence-based malpractice claim and a separate breach of fiduciary duty claim; but this fiduciary duty claim must be beyond what has traditionally been characterized as legal malpractice and negligence.
3. Here Crain has asserted a legal malpractice claim and a myriad of other claims against Goldthwaite that are all based on the same factual allegations as the legal malpractice claim.
4. The parties agree that the claim of legal malpractice must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction under Texas Government Code 25A.004(h)(3).
5. With respect to the fractured malpractice-based claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of confidential information, fraud/intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation, they all arise from Goldthwaite’s conduct as purported counsel for the “Northern Crain” entities and his alleged professional failures; as a result, they are improperly repackaged legal malpractice claims and are subject to the rule prohibiting fracturing a legal malpractice claim into multiple causes of action.
6. The general claims against all Goldthwaite and Northern for common law fraud, fraud by nondisclosure, conspiracy, and quantum meruit are subject to the same anti-fracturing rule, as they arise from the alleged attorney-client relationship and are legal malpractice claims against Goldthwaite.
7. All claims against Goldthwaite are dismissed without prejudice.