of Southmark, Defendants omit a crucial fact&emdash;the plaintiff in Southmark was the debtor. Id. at 927; [Adv. Doc. No. 23, p. 6]. In fact, the Southmark court based its reasoning on the fact that defendant accountants owed a fiduciary obligation to the debtor and were thus “responsible for managing the debtor’s estate in the best interest of creditors.” Southmark, 163 F.3d at 931 (5th Cir.1999). Unlike South-mark, Plaintiffs here are not the Debtor. Thus, this dispute does not raise the issue of Defendants’ fiduciary obligation to the Debtor or Defendants’ responsibility for representing the Debtor’s estate in the best interest of creditors. ICM Notes, Ltd. v. Andrews & Kurth, L.L.P., 278 B.R. 117, 123 (S.D.Tex.2002) aff'd sub nom. In re ICM Notes Ltd., 324 F.3d 768 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). As Plaintiffs’ causes of action do not turn
holding that an attorney for a debtor owes a general fiduciary duty to preserve the bankruptcy estate holding that an attorney owes a fiduciary duty to persons though not strictly clients who he knows or should know rely on him in his professional capacity holding that an attorney is a fiduciary under section 523a4 holding that a debtor could not relitigate the claim that the trustee breached his fiduciary duty because the bankruptcy court had already held that the trustees actions were not improper holding that an agent owes a fiduciary duty to his principal