context: That is not to say that Wolf may not have recourse against Clark Hill directly. An attorney who represents a closely held corporation and a controlling shareholder may also have a fiduciary to the other shareholder(s).
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: "Indeed, there is logic in the proposition that, even though counsel for a closely held corporation does not by virtue of that relationship alone have an attorney-client relationship with the individual shareholders, counsel nevertheless owes each shareholder a fiduciary duty."
citation_a.sentence: See Fassihi, 107 Mich.App. at 515, 516, 309 N.W.2d at 648, 649 (holding that even where no attorney-client relationship exists between a shareholder and the corporate attorney, “this does not necessarily mean that [the law firm] had no fiduciary duty to [the shareholder],” and observing that “[instances in which the corporation attorneys stand in a fiduciary relationship to individual shareholders are obviously more likely to arise where the number of shareholders is small. In such cases it is not really a matter of the courts piercing the corporate entity”); see also Schaeffer v. Cohen, Rosenthal, Price, Mirkin, Jennings & Berg, P.C., 405 Mass. 506, 541 N.E.2d 997, 1002 (1989) (“Indeed, there is logic in the proposition that, even though counsel for a closely held corporation does not by virtue of that relationship alone have an attorney-client relationship with the individual shareholders, counsel nevertheless owes each shareholder a fiduciary duty.”) (citing Fassihi).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 309 N.W.2d 648, 648, 649
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that even where no attorney-client relationship exists between a shareholder and the corporate attorney, "this does not necessarily mean that [the law firm] had no fiduciary duty to [the shareholder]," and observing that "[instances in which the corporation attorneys stand in a fiduciary relationship to individual shareholders are obviously more likely to arise where the number of shareholders is small. In such cases it is not really a matter of the courts piercing the corporate entity"
citation_b.sentence: See Fassihi, 107 Mich.App. at 515, 516, 309 N.W.2d at 648, 649 (holding that even where no attorney-client relationship exists between a shareholder and the corporate attorney, “this does not necessarily mean that [the law firm] had no fiduciary duty to [the shareholder],” and observing that “[instances in which the corporation attorneys stand in a fiduciary relationship to individual shareholders are obviously more likely to arise where the number of shareholders is small. In such cases it is not really a matter of the courts piercing the corporate entity”); see also Schaeffer v. Cohen, Rosenthal, Price, Mirkin, Jennings & Berg, P.C., 405 Mass. 506, 541 N.E.2d 997, 1002 (1989) (“Indeed, there is logic in the proposition that, even though counsel for a closely held corporation does not by virtue of that relationship alone have an attorney-client relationship with the individual shareholders, counsel nevertheless owes each shareholder a fiduciary duty.”) (citing Fassihi).