Stephen v. Sallaz & Gatewood
248 P.3d 1256 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney commits legal malpractice by failing to exercise the duties of competent and diligent representation when they do not investigate a significant discrepancy in asset valuation or inform their client of the opposing party's higher valuation, thereby preventing the client from making an informed decision in a settlement. A professional service corporation is liable for the wrongful acts of its attorney employees committed while rendering professional services on behalf of the corporation.
Facts:
- Pamela Joerger Stephen retained attorney Scott Gatewood of the law firm Sallaz & Gatewood, Chtd. to represent her in a divorce from her husband, Gary Stephen.
- During the divorce proceedings, Pamela disclosed to Gatewood that she suffered from bi-polar disorder, had two prior suicide attempts, and was on medication.
- Gatewood was also aware that Pamela had been involuntarily hospitalized a week before the trial was scheduled to begin.
- In discovery exchanges, Gary Stephen valued the couple's Crescent Rim property at $500,000.
- Gatewood never informed Pamela of her husband's $500,000 valuation of the property.
- Relying on an old appraisal and without knowledge of her husband's valuation, Pamela valued the same property at $385,500.
- The final settlement agreement was based on Pamela's lower valuation of $385,500.
- A $28,000 judgment lien against the Crescent Rim property, which had been paid off two months prior to the settlement, was nevertheless credited to Gary Stephen in the final agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- Pamela Joerger Stephen filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against Scott Gatewood, Dennis Sallaz, and the law firm Sallaz & Gatewood, Chtd. in an Idaho district court (the court of first instance).
- Following a bench trial, the district court found Gatewood and the law firm liable for malpractice.
- The district court entered a judgment against Gatewood and the firm for $27,435.00 plus costs.
- The court found that Dennis Sallaz was not personally liable for the malpractice.
- The district court denied requests for attorney fees from both Pamela Stephen and Dennis Sallaz.
- Gatewood and the law firm (Appellants) appealed the malpractice judgment to the Supreme Court of Idaho.
- Pamela Stephen (Respondent) cross-appealed, challenging the damage calculation, the ruling on Sallaz's liability, and the denial of her attorney fees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney commit legal malpractice by failing to inform their client of the opposing party's significantly higher property valuation and failing to investigate or advise the client on the discrepancy before finalizing a divorce settlement?
Opinions:
Majority - J. Jones
Yes. An attorney commits legal malpractice by failing to investigate, inform, and advise a client regarding a significant discrepancy in property valuations during a divorce proceeding. The attorney-client relationship imposes duties of competent and diligent representation and adequate communication. Gatewood breached these duties by not informing Pamela of her husband's $500,000 valuation of the Crescent Rim property, which was over $100,000 more than her own valuation. This failure deprived Pamela of critical information necessary to make an informed decision and did not constitute the thoroughness required for competent representation. While an attorney may generally rely on a client's valuation, the substantial discrepancy here, coupled with the duty to pursue an equitable property division in a divorce, obligated Gatewood to at least advise Pamela of the higher valuation and its implications. Furthermore, Gatewood's failure to recognize that a $28,000 lien had been paid off further demonstrated a lack of diligence and zealous representation. The court also affirmed that the law firm, Sallaz & Gatewood, Chtd., as a professional corporation, is statutorily liable for the malpractice of its employee-attorney.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fundamental duties of communication, diligence, and competence an attorney owes to a client, particularly in the context of divorce and asset division. It establishes that an attorney's duty of thoroughness is not satisfied by passively accepting a client's information when contradictory and more favorable evidence is available. The ruling clarifies that lawyers must be proactive in analyzing key facts, such as conflicting property valuations, and advising clients accordingly to ensure they can make truly informed decisions. This precedent strengthens the standard of care for attorneys in settlement negotiations, mandating active engagement rather than passive representation.
Unlock the full brief for Stephen v. Sallaz & Gatewood