Beginning in the early 1960’s, loans secured by real estate began to be so secured using a trust deed rather than a mortgage. To be valid, the trust deed must name a trustee who holds the security interest in the real estate for the benefit of the lender. The trustee is called upon to foreclose the trust deed in the event that there is a default of the payment of the loan and the lender directs the initiation of foreclosure. Because a trustee under a typical trust agreement owes what is called a fiduciary or higher duty of care to the parties to the agreement there has existed the question of whether a trust deed trustee, by reason of that office, automatically has a fiduciary duty to the person giving the trust deed. Nielsen & Senior represented such a trustee in an action wherein the persons giving the trust deed contended that our client owed them a fiduciary duty of care although they had never known him or had any personal relationship with him. We persuaded the trial court to find that there was no fiduciary duty owing by the client. The case was appealed by the persons who gave the trust deed. Responding to the appeal, we also so persuaded the Utah Court of Appeals which ruled that the client, by virtue of his service in the office of trustee of the trust deed, did not owe a fiduciary duty of care to the persons who had given the trust deed. James Russell, et al. v. J. Scott Lundberg, et al., 2005 UT App. 315, 120 P.3d 541