Christina J. Greenfield v. Ian D. Smith
162 Idaho 246
| Idaho | 2017Background
- Greenfield hired attorney Ian D. Smith in 2010 to represent her in a civil suit against neighbors and later in related criminal charges; Smith withdrew in March 2012 and Greenfield proceeded pro se.
- A jury returned an adverse verdict in the civil case on November 30, 2012; judgment (including trebled damages and fees) was affirmed on appeal.
- Greenfield filed a legal malpractice complaint against Smith on December 1, 2014, alleging multiple failures in both the criminal and civil representations.
- Smith moved for summary judgment asserting claims were time-barred under the two-year professional malpractice statute and that Greenfield failed to produce expert evidence on standard of care and causation; Smith submitted an expert affidavit supporting his care.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Smith; Greenfield appealed, challenging the statute-of-limitations calculation and the requirement for expert proof. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part: it held Greenfield’s civil-matter malpractice claims were timely (due to Sunday-holiday computation) but summary judgment nonetheless proper because Greenfield presented no expert evidence to create a genuine issue on standard of care or causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Greenfield) | Defendant's Argument (Smith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Applicable statute of limitations | Claims are contract-based and governed by 5-year limit | Claims are professional malpractice governed by 2-year statute | 2-year professional malpractice statute applies |
| 2. Accrual and filing deadline for civil-matter claims | Malpractice suit filed Dec 1, 2014 is timely; district court miscalculated | Limitations ran Nov 30, 2014 so suit is late | Timeliness: complaint was timely because Nov 30, 2014 was a Sunday (holiday) so deadline was Dec 1, 2014 |
| 3. Need for expert testimony to oppose summary judgment | Pro se Greenfield can testify; expert not required for alleged deficiencies | Expert evidence required to show breach of standard and causation; defense expert shows no breach | Expert needed except for malpractice that is obvious to laypersons; here expert required, and absence of plaintiff expert warrants summary judgment for defendant |
| 4. Entitlement to attorney fees on appeal | Not specifically argued to overcome statute | Requests fees under I.C. § 12-121 as prevailing party | Denied—plaintiff raised a legitimate statute-of-limitations issue so case not frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Kolln v. Saint Luke’s Regl. Med. Ctr., 130 Idaho 323 (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Kiebert v. Goss, 144 Idaho 225 (materials to consider on summary judgment)
- Parks v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 160 Idaho 556 (construction of facts in favor of nonmovant)
- Jones v. Starnes, 150 Idaho 257 (non-moving party must prove essential elements to survive summary judgment)
- Lapham v. Stewart, 137 Idaho 582 (§ 5-219(4) professional malpractice covers contract-sounding claims)
- Bishop v. Owens, 152 Idaho 616 (contract-based malpractice requires a written agreement imposing elevated standard)
- Murray v. Farmers Ins. Co., 118 Idaho 224 (plaintiff must show some chance of success in underlying case)
- Samuel v. Hepworth, Nungester & Lezamiz, Inc., 134 Idaho 84 (expert testimony ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases; narrow lay-obvious exception)
- Michalk v. Michalk, 148 Idaho 224 (pro se litigants held to same rules as represented parties)
- Suitts v. Nix, 141 Idaho 706 (same)
- Nelson v. Nelson, 144 Idaho 710 (same)
- Belk v. Martin, 136 Idaho 652 (appellant’s burden to provide adequate record on appeal)