In an earlier post, I criticized the case of Lash v. Cheshire Count Savings for holding that a bank could be a fiduciary to its borrowers. One problem with the decision is a failure to cite, with one exception, any precedents that could not be distinguished from the facts of the case. The one exception, First Nat’l Bank in Lenox v. Brown, presents a more difficult challenge to my efforts to exclude debtor/creditor relationships from fiduciary status.

I intend to share musings on fiduciary matters from time-to-time on our blog. Not regarding deep and complex matters such as the current DOL proposal or the SEC’s forthcoming uniform fiduciary standard. My fiduciary questions are more fundamental, and sometimes lead me to despair of formulating sensible views of such proposals. I suspect I am not alone in struggling to develop a framework for understanding fiduciary regulation, so I’m sharing my struggles.