On The Question Of Fiduciary Relationships

S

Spocko

#1
#1
I posted the following on another board but got hammered because the language was too hard to be understood by some and it was felt that I was relating the post to a particularly popular new provider, which was never my intent. It was suggested to me privately that the post might get a fairer response on this board.


This is the first post for me on this board. Even though there was some flack over the correct meaning of the word "fiduciary", I have decided just to post again here without making "any" changes. I hope you folks will give me a more enlightened set of response than I received elsewhere. BTW, about the language, I admit to purposely trying to be a little vague, generic and broad based enough with my question so to not draw attention to any recent incidents on the other board. I hope you get it.


-----------------------


All right, I can hear it now. You're saying "What is that idiot talking about now?" So let me explain. A fiduciary relationship is a relationship of "trust". It is generally not a legally binding type thing but I'm sure that it may be in some situations and it could be enforced in a court of law. Lawyers, feel free to correct me on this point. It exist when a party can expect a level of trust/ confidentiality/ privileged communication/ honesty etc., from a party by the nature of their relationship. An example would be a Buyer in a real estate transaction. The Broker works for the Seller, who pays his commission. But the Buyer has and should expect a fiduciary relationship to exist with the Broker.


Since the escort business is in itself a legal enterprise, what then is the fiduciary standard between the escort and her client? Does a fiduciary relationship even exist? If so, and I personally believe there is, what, how or when would such a relationship be broken? Unlike say the vows of a Catholic priest to never reveal what is said in the confessional, even to the point of allowing a murderer to walk the streets and murder again, I understand there will be times in the best interest of the escort community as a whole, certain private information will be made public. But where is the line crossed?


What is an acceptable situation to publish the private information about a client? I'm not saying there is anything wrong in saying "Screen name is a jerk, and this is why;" At least under those circumstances, screen name retains anonymity and can defend him/herself. While I would personally find it distasteful to wash the laundry in public so to speak, at least those parties, or those who know them, could also confirm or defend against the allegations.


But what about saying "Screen name, who is really John Doe, 5555 Main St., (888) 555-1234, is a jerk" (worst case scenario). There are a lot of in betweens. How about just saying "Screen name privately told me this or said this to me"? How about if such comments are taken out of context to rationalize a position? How about if no screen name is used but might might just be figured out by somebody with an inquisitive mind and capable of doing a little research? How about the non public forum or back channel attack? Is it right to break a fiduciary because it's done in private, maybe with the hope that it will be spread around and hurt the other party or garner you support in the public forum?


I'm smart enough to realize that friendships exist and some personal information changes hands in the world of back channel communications. That's to be expected. I'm not talking about the guy who writes his buddy and says "I saw your rave review, but is there any down side to her that I should be aware of?". To me that's just getting an expanded point of view and it is requested and not offered in and of itself without solicitation. Likewise, a provider should also be able to ask any private questions of another provider germane to cleanliness, health, personality or whatever about a particular client.


Because, IMHO, fiduciaries work both ways. My question here relates only to those items that should not be discussed and to where a right of privacy could or should be expected. Where is the line drawn?


--------------------------------

That's all folks!!!
 
D

DewDude

#4
#4
Mr. SlinkyBender,

As a long time lurker to this board I've frequently noticed that weekends are very slow posting days.

BTW is "Spocko" the 2,000th "unique" name registered or just the 2,000th name registered?

Maybe "Spocko" can be a little more specific as to situation he/she has in mind?
 
Slinky Bender

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#5
#5
I'm not sure of the question. How do you have non-unique names ? Remember, all users must be registered and confirmed, and you can't register more than one screen name per email account. There is no way of knowing if someone registers two separate screen names if they use all other different info, so we have no idea how many phantoms we have ( if, for example, we banned more than one user per IP, we'd have to knock out an awful lot of members, even one's we know for sure are "unique" ).

[Edited by slinkybender on 07-29-2001 at 02:01 PM]
 
D

DewDude

#6
#6
Mr. Slinkbender,

I'm using "unique" as a definition of one user, one screen name. So if as you claim that "Spocko" is the 2,000th registered member of Utopia Guide is he the 2,000th indivdual to register or is "Spocko" the 2,000th registered screen name? By point being is there Utopia Guide members with more then one screen name? TIA
 
S

Spocko

#7
#7
English Translation

First of all, as I said, this is the first time I have ever posted here. I have never had any other screen names. Thanks to slinkybender for letting me know I'm number 2000. I'm sure there is no prize but it's always nice being unique in some small way.

Regarding the translation:

Let me say that I won't discuss any specifics about why I first posted this or any provider/client who may have inspired it in the first place. I will, however, try to make it a little more simple if I can.

In the relationship between a client and provider, many times each may come into contact with personal information about the other. When is the line crossed in revealing any or all of this information, to a third party or 1,000 third parties, either in a public or private way? This is with regards to either side leaking such information. The subtlety of the various situations are discussed in the original post, but that's the crux of it. I said I was sorry for the vagueness of the original post but it did not want to reveal if real parties even inspired the post. I can assure you that I have never discussed this situation with any third party, pubic or private and will certainly not do so here, even though it has been the subject of much speculation. Please just consider it a generic question. Thanks.
 
F

fishfry

#8
#8
"I'm sure there is no prize"

Slinky will buy you a club soda at the next UG get together. See how I love to throw his money around.


"When is the line crossed in revealing any or all of this information, to a third party or 1,000 third parties, either in a public or private way?"

Ah. The question is, under what circumstances may a client or provider out each other's personal info.

My answer is almost never. Only in extreme cases of physical violence, coercion, essentially behavior that's both criminal and immoral.

For example if I happened to have someone's personal info and they did a cash and dash out of my apartment, I might or might not report them to the police. But I would not publish her true name on the Internet. There are just too many psychos out there, too many guys who might be moved to vigilante justice.

I believe that privacy and trust are almost absolute in client/provider relations. I would not out someone based on a minor ripoff or bad service; I would not out them based on rumors of disease or unsafe activity (this is a popular justification for outing and harassing people).

If someone does a criminal act, report them to the police.

Vigilantism is almost never justified. I keep saying "almost" in case somebody comes up with an extreme example that does justify outing, but it would have to be pretty extreme.

Petty misbehavior (cash and dash, rude and crude, whatever) is not grounds for outing.

My two cents. Now every cash and dash artist in town is going to be calling me up for a date. Sorry girls I gave at the office.

fish
 
O

OCharley

#9
#9
As a Lawyer I can tell you your basic definition of "fiduciary" is flawed leaglly, but accepting yr definition, the next step of the analysis becomes, what do the parties themselves expect. What has transpired in the past, that may control the expectations of the future conduct.

Also, note, legaly, "illegal relationships" do not enjoy the protections under the law. You cannot sue a hired killer because he botched the job.

Finally, one of the problems with letting providers have access to personal info is that they may very well disclose it. To think otherwise is wrong, and to act accordingly is necessary.
 
T

thelastone

#10
#10
in response to spocko...

Originally posted by Spocko
(snip) A fiduciary relationship is a relationship of "trust". It is generally not a legally binding type thing but I'm sure that it may be in some situations and it could be enforced in a court of law.
Click to expand...
I must agree with O'Charley that your definition is slightly flawed. However, this is not a legal relationship (at least in this state), and therefore cannot be supported under any legal umbrella. Would you say there is a relationship of "trust" between drug dealer and drug user? Certainly, but, no legal form of that relationship.

Since the escort business is in itself a legal enterprise, what then is the fiduciary standard between the escort and her client? Does a fiduciary relationship even exist? If so, and I personally believe there is, what, how or when would such a relationship be broken?
Click to expand...
In the scenarios where it is a legal industry ('dam, Aus., Nevada, etc.), there are certainly standards that exist. They come from local, regional, and industry wide practices that get adopted. When you go to a restaurant, you usually give a 15% tip. When you valet park your car, you usually give the guy a few bucks. These are standard practices of today in these service businesses. However I do expect to get "my money's worth". I expect that my waiter won't spit in my food, and that my valet won't dent my car. I also expect this from any provider I see. But in this case, is this a "fiduciary relationship"?
Even by your definition of "fiduciary relationship", I wouldn't agree that it exists between provider and client. I would say it is more like contractor-contractee. If you pay some guy $X amount to mow your lawn, he does the job, you pay him, and thats it. There is no need to continue your relationship with this guy unless you want your lawn mowed again. The relationship ends when both parties are satisfied. To break off a relationship, there must be an implied continuation of services (a service contract). I'm skeptical of your idea that personal knowledge is the condition for furtherence of this relationship. I don't need to break off the relationship with my landscaper because it is built into the contract. The same with provider and client. The relationship ends when the contract ends.

(snip) I understand there will be times in the best interest of the escort community as a whole, certain private information will be made public. But where is the line crossed?
What is an acceptable situation to publish the private information about a client?
Click to expand...
I must agree mostly with FF here. I don't deem any situation acceptable to "out" a client or a provider (with very few exceptions). Most of the providers here, seem to me that they are sensitive to this and follow this "standard". However there are some that don't agree with this, and have outed others. These people are on both sides of the fence (providers and clients). All you need to do is go back and search for a few threads and this will become evident (or I'm sure a few of the "old-timers" here could point you to the exact threads). There should be no reason for a client to "out" a provider. And the only time where I can even think that a provider can out a client, would be when violence is involved. Even in this case I would say that it would be best to restrict this information away from open boards like these, and go to a more private, provider-only, board.

This of course is my 2 pesos worth.
If there are certain holes in my logic please forgive. When I wrote it the first time, it sounded much better, but unfortunately, my NT box crashed while I was previewing it and before I could post it.
It was also alot longer so you can thank my pc for not have to read 2 pages of this drivel. I don't de lurk often but when I do, I sometimes go crazy!

last


[Edited by thelastone on 07-30-2001 at 05:11 PM]
 
S

Spocko

#11
#11
The term to "out" somebody

I did not find your answer too long and wish I could have read the longer version. The use of the word fiduciary has caused the most problem with understanding this post and I wish I had not used it. As defined in the FREC handbook it states "in a broader sense, whenever one person invites another to have trust or confidence in him and such trust or confidence is given, a fiduciary relationship exists." Regardless, I should have just used the word "trust". We trust them and they trust us. It became embroiled in a legal definition that I never intended. With regards to further breaking down the question, I'm not sure I understand the definition of the term "out".

Please understand that I am not purposefully trying to reinvent the dictionary here, and I hope you can follow my thinking. Does "out" refer to full disclosure of personal information or some lesser transgressions as well. Example of a lesser transgression might public disclosure, without revealing of actual identity, of previously private communications, or any part of such communications, be it verbal or electronic, in or out of context. When and if such revelations occur, should the second party just be quiet because he/she has not been identified, even if derogatory comments are later made about his/her character in public? Please forgive the last few sentences, I'm not trying to be a smart ass just thorough. Just asking this question has already cost me at least one valued friendship and I'd just like to know how far off base I might have been.
 
P

pswope

One out of three
#12
#12
IMO,the issue is one of implied and social contract. Whether it's expressly discussed or not,the client has the right to infer that the private info he gives the provider will not be disseminated,absent extraordinary circumstances.
Since a "date" is a contract for illegal services,in most places,and therfor not enforceable,I'm not talking in a strict legalistic sense where an aggrieved party would seek redress in a civil court.
Rather,there is a market place,which should and does sanction providers,who unjustifiably disseminate private client information by ostrascizing those providers from additional business. Before the advent of the UCC and our currently over litigious society,this is how the commercial market policed itself.
 
S

Spocko

#13
#13
Well, after no further responses within the last several days, I am guessing that this subject is probably a dead issue. I want to thank the few who did take the time to respond and for their thoughful answers. I'm sorry that I could not be more specific with my question because I consider both parties that were initially involved in the prompting of my question to still be my friends. In that case I think it was a matter of interpretation of what information was released and how it was done. I think they have both let the incident pass and my question was only with regards to at what level, if any, could a trust be considered violated. I know that without specifics that is a hard question to answer. To those of you who tried, thanks again.
 
H

HH

#14
#14
Well to put it simple, you can't trust most providers in this business. A 'trust' relasionship has been broken on me a few times in the past, and by a couple of the most popular ladies on this board. I don't do anything about it because that's the nature of the business. And if you think they don't talk about you to other clients/providers then you are sadly mistaken. I have been told stuff about many of you guys by these same ladies, sometimes more then I care to know about. It's
amazing what is said when you are lying down in bed after furious sex. Back channel issues run rampant. I have the emails to prove it, but I won't. Thats how the wars start. I'm sure many of you have gotten similar ones sent to you. So as a matter of trust - just take notice what you do and say because most likely it will reach other peoples ears.
 
S

Spocko

#15
#15
Sage Advice

I guess as a bottom line you are the most correct of them all. If you say nothing, don't make friends and don't discuss anybody's business but your own, you can't go wrong.You can't be quoted for something you haven't said. Iit's too bad things have to be that way, but that would appear to be the safest path to take and the best advice you could give to anybody. Keep to yourself and mind your own business.
 
J

justme

homo economicus
#16
#16
It's amazing what is said when you are lying down in bed after furious sex

Exactly. Everyone should remember that these are artificially intimate settings. There should be no more reason to trust your commercial partners than you would your lawn guy.
 
M

Monk

#20
#20
Sprocko

I think the problem is that you posed your question as a legal question when, in reality, it is simply a matter of common decency. If you out someone you are trying to hurt that person. And that steps over the line. Period.

Now, is writing a review, for example, "outing" a provider? We could argue this to death. But the fact is that most reviews end up advertising a provider's services, for better or worse.

I think you'd have a hard time sueing someone for outing you. But, on the other hand, your reputation would be damaged and you might end up in a sticky situation with your wife and family (if taken to the extreme), so the damage could be quite extreme. You couldn't make a legal case of the situation, but you could say that you suffered due to their action.

Which leads me back to my first point: it's simply a matter of common decency not to out someone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top