Kenneth R. Borries v. Malcolm Murphy a/k/a A. Malcolm Murphy, 324 So.3d 261

Borries retained attorney Malcolm Murphy for many matters from 2004–2013; over that period Borries paid checks and cash to Murphy but disputed the total owed.
Murphy asked Borries to sign three promissory notes (9/11/2012: $30,000; 10/1/2013: $2,500; 10/1/2013: $2,500) identifying the matters for which the balances were due.
Borries did not deny signing the notes but said he signed only because Murphy (his lawyer) told him the notes were "for records," that Murphy would credit prior payments, and that fees would be calculated at $150/hr (Borries disputed Murphy’s claimed $250/hr).
Murphy sued for nonpayment; he produced time records and one detailed 2007 invoice; Borries counterclaimed seeking an accounting and reasonable-fee determination.
Trial court granted summary judgment for Murphy on the notes and later denied Borries leave to amend and dismissed the counterclaim as barred by res judicata; Borries appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Borries)	Defendant's Argument (Murphy)	Held
1. Was summary judgment proper on enforcement of the promissory notes?	Notes were executed in a fiduciary attorney–client context and procured with misrepresentations; fee reasonableness and credits create factual disputes.	Notes are clear, unambiguous, voluntarily signed promissory notes; no genuine factual dispute on liability.	Affirmed — notes unambiguous and voluntarily signed; court will not "go behind" the written notes on summary judgment; fee disputes are for disciplinary/other fora.
2. Should Borries have been allowed to amend his counterclaim after discovery?	Newly discovered discovery supports amended counterclaim (more payments, agreed $150/hr) and would raise issues of misconduct and reasonableness.	Amendment would be futile because summary judgment on the notes resolved the dispositive issues.	Affirmed denial — amendment would be futile because enforcing the unambiguous notes resolved the core dispute.
3. Was dismissal of the counterclaim on res judicata grounds error?	Counterclaim raises distinct claims (overpayment, breach of fiduciary duty) not fully addressed by Murphy’s collection suit.	The counterclaim is effectively resolved by the judgment enforcing the notes; res judicata applies.	Affirmed — counterclaim was rendered moot by summary judgment enforcing the notes.

Venture, Inc. v. Harris, 307 So. 3d 427 (Miss. 2020) (standard of review for summary judgment; view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Renner v. Retzer Res., Inc., 236 So. 3d 810 (Miss. 2017) (summary judgment evidence standard)
Turner v. Terry, 799 So. 2d 25 (Miss. 2001) (unchanged-contract/plain-language rule; unambiguous contracts construed from their wording)
Tyson v. Moore, 613 So. 2d 817 (Miss. 1992) (attorney–client transactions scrutinized; undue advantage presumption and attorney rebuttable burden)
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. v. Seay, 42 So. 3d 474 (Miss. 2010) (attorney duties include care and fiduciary loyalty; breaches may support relief)
Thompson v. Hill, 112 So. 697 (Miss. 1927) (parol-evidence rule bars prior oral agreements that contradict an unambiguous written contract)
Spilker v. Hankin, 188 F.2d 35 (D.C. Cir. 1951) (fee contracts executed during an ongoing attorney–client relationship receive close judicial scrutiny)