Yes. A lawyer's promise to be loyal to a client doesn't just disappear when the job is over. The court said that on issues that are closely connected to the original work, a lawyer has an ongoing duty not to work against a former client. By advising the Wheatleys to stop paying Damron based on the exact contract he created for Damron, the lawyer broke this promise of loyalty. This isn't just an ethical mistake; it's a legal wrong that hurt the former client financially, so the former client has the right to sue for the damages he suffered.

No, a lawyer shouldn't be allowed to work against a former client on a similar case. Even though Herzog wasn't Damron's lawyer anymore, he still had to be loyal when it came to the business sale he helped with. It's like how lawyers have to keep their clients' secrets forever - they also have to stay loyal forever on related matters. This is because there's a big risk that the lawyer could use or accidentally reveal old secrets, even if they don't mean to. We're not making a new rule here, we're just saying that the old rules about loyalty apply even after you stop being someone's lawyer. This means Damron can sue Herzog for not being loyal, just like he could if Herzog had told someone his secrets.

Yes. An attorney owes a former client a continuing duty of care regarding matters substantially related to the initial engagement, and a breach of this duty can support a malpractice action for damages. The court found that an attorney's duty of loyalty does not end when the representation concludes but continues for matters substantially related to the original work. For the purposes of analyzing malpractice in such a situation, the attorney-client relationship is treated as if it were still in effect. This continuing duty of loyalty is a natural complement to the universally recognized continuing duty of confidentiality. Because representing a new client against a former client on a substantially related matter creates a grave risk of breaching confidentiality, the law must also recognize a corresponding duty of loyalty that, when breached, gives the former client a cause of action for damages.

Yes, an attorney owes a continuing duty of loyalty to a former client that prohibits representing an adverse interest in a substantially related matter. I find that for the purpose of Herzog's adverse representation in a matter substantially related to his initial engagement with Damron, the attorney-client relationship was still in effect. The duty of loyalty continues after formal representation ends with respect to matters substantially related to the initial matter of engagement. This is not an extension of Idaho law, but rather a natural complement to existing law. The duty of loyalty is correlative to the continuing duty of confidentiality. When an attorney engages in a conflict of interest on the same matter, there is a grave risk of breach of confidence, even if confidential information is not actually disclosed. Therefore, because the duty of confidentiality remains intact with respect to Herzog's representation of Damron, the duty of loyalty also continues with respect to matters substantially related to that representation. This finding does not augment attorneys' existing obligations under rules of professional conduct, but allows for a malpractice action when those duties are breached. The judgment of the district court is reversed and remanded for trial.

Paul S. Damron v. Vern Herzog, Jr.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot