When we hear the phrase “claim against a lawyer,” most of us, understandably, think of negligence-based legal malpractice claims. The Idaho Supreme Court recently provided a reminder that lawyers there are also subject to breach of fiduciary duty and Consumer Protection Act claims.
Estate of Kalinski v. Murphy Law Office, PLLC, __ Idaho __, 2026 WL 1216976 (Idaho 2026), involved claims against a lawyer over the handling of an estate. Although framed under different theories, all of the claims shared the central thread alleging the lawyer had been negligent. The trial court dismissed all of the claims on summary judgment. The client appealed two claims: unjust enrichment, which the client argued was akin to breach of fiduciary duty; and violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act. The Idaho Supreme Court upheld the dismissals. In doing so, however, it reaffirmed relatively recent decisions recognizing breach of fiduciary duty and Consumer Protection Act claims against lawyers.
On the former, the Idaho Supreme Court recognized breach of fiduciary duty as a claim distinct from legal malpractice in Parkinson v. Bevis, 165 Idaho 599, 448 P.3d 1027 (2019). Parkinson involved a breach of the duty of confidentiality. There, the Idaho Supreme Court found that the gravamen of a breach of fiduciary duty claim went to—as the term implies—a breach of a lawyer’s fiduciary duties to a client rather than negligence and also found that fee disgorgement was an available remedy for that kind of claim. The Idaho Supreme Court in Estate of Kalinski reaffirmed Parkinson in distinguishing unjust enrichment from breach of fiduciary duty (and then concluded unjust enrichment did not apply on its facts to the case at hand). Idaho’s approach on breach of fiduciary duty claims is generally similar to Washington as reflected in decisions such as Eriks v. Denver, 118 Wn.2d 451, 824 P.2d 1207 (1992), and Benke v. Ahrens, 172 Wn. App. 281, 294 P.3d 729 (2012).
On the latter, the Idaho Supreme Court recognized that the business aspects of law practice could be subject to the Idaho Consumer Protection Act in Lister Frost Injury Lawyers, PLLC v. Idaho Injury Law Group, PLLC, 171 Idaho 1, 518 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2022). Lister involved misrepresentation in the client intake process about a law firm’s fee agreement. The Idaho Supreme Court in Lister found that the misrepresentation constituted a deceptive act under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act. The Idaho Consumer Protection Act includes rescission and damages among its potential remedies and allows a private right of action in addition to enforcement by the Idaho attorney general. Although the Idaho Supreme Court in Estate of Kalinski found that the facts didn’t support a Consumer Protection Act claim, the court reaffirmed the general viability of such claims in appropriate circumstances under Lister. Again, Idaho’s approach generally mirrors Washington under Short v. Demopolis, 103 Wn.2d 52, 691 P.2d 163 (1984).
While not plowing any new ground itself, Estate of Kalinski makes plain that neither Parkinson nor Lister were aberrations and that both breach of fiduciary and Consumer Protection Act claims are available against lawyers in appropriate circumstances in Idaho.
