What is the current state of the law with respect to forfeiture in a personal injury case?

The degree to which forfeiture is warranted as an equitable remedy will necessarily vary with the equities of the case. The commentary to the Restatement thus recognizes that while an attorney's "flagrant" breach of his or her duty to a client may justify a complete forfeiture even without proof of harm to the client (Rest.3d Law Governing Lawyers, supra , 37, com. d, p. 273), in other, less egregious cases complete forfeiture "would sometimes be an excessive sanction, giving a windfall to a client" (id. , com. b, p. 272). As our sister court has explained, a rule of automatic and complete forfeiture "for every breach of fiduciary duty, or even every serious breach, would deprive the remedy of its equitable nature and would disserve its purpose of protecting relationships of trust." ( Burrow v. Arce (Tex. 1999) 997 S.W.2d 229, 241 ; see also id. at p. 242, fn. 45 [collecting state cases taking similarly flexible approach].)