for Peralta and Garcia to disclose to Appellees advice that each had given him, he did so on the advice of his counsel. Moreover, Galindo answered all but one of Appellees’ questions despite Bohorquez’s objections as to attorney-client privilege throughout his deposition. Although the Galindos did hire and release multiple attorneys throughout the case, the record does not show that they were involved with the decision to assert the privileges or that they understood the legal intricacies of whether they had waived privilege under the offensive use doctrine. Therefore, the trial court erred when it ordered sanctions against the Galindos for offensive conduct, if any, committed by their counsel. See, e.g., Glass v. Glass, 826 S.W.2d 683, 687-88 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1992, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). Appellants also contend that the order is
holding that an attorneys filing a notice of appearance on behalf of his or her client constitute a waiver of service of process by the client holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client holding that even where a client was more sophisticated in business matters than the lawyer himself the lawyer should have assumed the client was relying on the lawyer for the legal aspects of the loan from the client to the lawyer to the same extent that the client would rely on the lawyer for advice were the client making the loan to a third person holding trial court erred when it sanctioned client where the evidence showed that the attorney filed frivolous pleadings on behalf of the client but the client did nothing more than rely on her attorneys advice holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client  where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client