Miller v. Begley, 262 P.3d 1085

Miller pled guilty in 1991 to two counts of deliberate homicide.
In 2004, Goetz represented Miller in a parole matter; Miller sued Goetz for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Miller arranged for Begley to represent him on a limited basis primarily to obtain discovery; Begley withdrew from representation and Goetz obtained summary judgment against Miller.
Miller then sued Begley for breach of contract (two counts), breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraudulent deceit; Begley moved for summary judgment and the court granted it, noting Begley aided Miller but the Goetz claim had deficiencies unrelated to Begley’s services.
Miller appeals the grant of summary judgment to Begley.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of contract against Begley	Miller claims Begley orally promised to perform six discovery-related services.	Begley contends there was no express six-service agreement; he limited representation to aiding discovery and could exercise professional judgment.	District Court affirmed; no genuine issue of material fact.
Bad faith by Begley	Begley misled Miller to obtain fees and acted in bad faith.	Begley consistently warned Miller that claims lacked merit and were unlikely to succeed.	No genuine issue; summary judgment upheld.
Fraudulent deceit by Begley	Affidavits show Begley promised deposition and deceived Miller.	Record shows Begley warned against deposition and did not misrepresent; alleged promises are self-serving.	No genuine issue; summary judgment upheld.

Schmidt v. Wash. Contractors Group, Inc., 964 P.2d 34 (Mont. 1998 MT 194) (summary judgment standards; burdens on movant and nonmovant)
Sherrard v. Prewett, 36 P.3d 378 (Mont. 2001 MT 228) (conclusory statements insufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact)