Case Name: Patricia A. BROOKS and First Interstate Bank, N.A., Casper, Co-Trustees of the Brooks Marital Trust, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. John A. ZEBRE, d/b/a John A. Zebre, P.C., a Wyoming Corporation, Appellee (Defendant)
Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming
Jurisdiction: Wyoming
Decision Date: 1990-05-17
Citations: 792 P.2d 196
Docket Number: No. 88-263
Parties: Patricia A. BROOKS and First Interstate Bank, N.A., Casper, Co-Trustees of the Brooks Marital Trust, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. John A. ZEBRE, d/b/a John A. Zebre, P.C., a Wyoming Corporation, Appellee (Defendant).
Judges: Before CARDINE, C.J., THOMAS, URBIGKIT, and MACY, JJ., and ROONEY, J., Retired.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 792
Pages: 196–243

Head Matter:
Patricia A. BROOKS and First Interstate Bank, N.A., Casper, Co-Trustees of the Brooks Marital Trust, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. John A. ZEBRE, d/b/a John A. Zebre, P.C., a Wyoming Corporation, Appellee (Defendant).
No. 88-263.
Supreme Court of Wyoming.
May 17, 1990.
Wesley A. Roberts and Donald P. White of White, White & Keenan, P.C., Riverton, for appellants.
W.W. Reeves of Reeves & Murdock, Cas-per, for appellee.
Before CARDINE, C.J., THOMAS, URBIGKIT, and MACY, JJ., and ROONEY, J., Retired.
. Crutchley v. First Trust and Savings Bank, 450 N.W.2d 877 (Iowa 1990) is similar but involves a real estate broker. The transaction involved a non-recourse real estate sales contract which plaintiff alleged was inadequately explained before execution, resulting in a large loss after default. Both contract and negligence claims were based upon (1) inadequate and incomplete explanation of the contractual provisions; (2) failure to affirmatively recommend use of independent counsel by the sellers; (3) "in discouraging plaintiffs from seeking legal counsel,” the realtor’s code of ethics provisions were admitted into evidence as proof of the violation of the ethical standard as evidence upon which a finding of fact of negligence could be made. Id. at 880. With disputed evidence of what had been said about independent counsel, a trial resulted in judgment against the realtors of $536,250, which the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed on both a breach of listing contract theory and a tort professional negligence theory. Id. at 879. Except what was done to Patricia Brooks is more egregious since independent counsel existed, she was a court officer as personal representative (administratrix) and the defendant was an attorney, this case provides a very comparable factual comparison.

Opinion:
THOMAS, Justice.
In this case, we address the question of whether John A. Zebre, a practicing attorney d/b/a John A. Zebre, P.C. (Zebre), owed a duty to Patricia A. Brooks (Brooks) and First Interstate Bank, N.A., Casper (Bank), the co-trustees of the Brooks marital trust, who were not clients of Zebre. The claims against Zebre had their genesis in his representation of members of the Arambel family in connection with a contract to lease, and an option to purchase, a ranch. Zebre's clients were the lessees and optionees under the contract. The claims against Zebre are asserted by Brooks and the Bank, with Brooks being the lessor and grantor of the option under the contract while acting as the personal representative of the estate of her deceased husband. After the contract was rescinded by the court because it was found to be unconscionable, Brooks and the Bank sought damages from Zebre. In the assertion of the claim for damages, theories of negligence, gross negligence, and fraud were pleaded. The district court granted a summary judgment to Zebre on the ground that no duty was owed by Zebre to Brooks that would permit recovery under the theories of negligence or gross negligence and on the ground that there was no fraud demonstrated on the record. We affirm the grant of summary judgment by the district court.
In the Appellants' Brief, Brooks and the Bank submit the following statement of issues:
"1. Does an attorney owe a duty to a non-client who he knows to be represented by an attorney when he undertakes to conduct negotiations, advises both parties as to the legal consequences of the transaction, and presides over the execution and closing of the transaction?
"2. Is there a genuine issue as to any material fact so as to preclude Summary Judgment as a matter of law in this case?
"3. Assuming, arguendo, that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact, could reasonable minds reach different conclusions from those undisputed facts on the issues of negligence, gross negligence and fraud so as to preclude Summary Judgment as a matter of law?"
Those issues then are afforded additional substance by the Summary of Argument, which we quote:
"I. Zebre owed a duty to the Brooks estate, and the heirs thereof, in connection with the lease and option to sell the Brooks Ranch, notwithstanding the absence of privity between them, because;
"A. The ethical duty imposed on attorneys in Wyoming by the Code of Professional Responsibility creates a legal duty and a legal standard of care.
"B. Zebre was not only acting as an attorney, but was performing functions of a real estate agent or broker in closing the Brooks Ranch transaction and should be held to at least that legal standard of care imposed upon the real estate profession.
"C. Zebre's conduct, when considered under the 'balancing of factors' test established in recent court decisions, clearly gives rise to an independent duty of care to the Brooks estate and the heirs thereof.
"D. Once Zebre spoke to the issue of imputed interest, he thereafter had a duty to make a full and fair disclosure thereof.
"II. The district court erred in granting summary judgment because there exist genuine issues as to material facts in this case.
"HI. Assuming, arguendo, that there exist no genuine issues as to any material facts, the district court erred in granting summary judgment because reasonable minds could reach different conclusions and inferences from the undisputed facts on the issues of negligence, gross negligence and fraud on the part of Ze-bre."
In the Brief of Appellee, John A. Zebre, the issues are articulated in this fashion:
"1. Whether current theories which impose liability on an attorney for harm to non-clients resulting from the attorney's negligence in performing professional services for a client, can apply where the non-client had interests adverse to those of the attorney's client and where the legal services were performed to the client's satisfaction;
"2. Whether violation of ethical rules of conduct adopted by the Supreme Court creates a private right of action, where no right of action for the conduct complained of otherwise exists;
"3. Whether appellants have adequately plead and established in the evidence a viable claim of fraud;
"4. Whether appellants' claims of fraud have been conclusively adjudicated against it, that is, may appellants maintain an action against Mr. Zebre on the contention that he participated in his client's scheme to defraud, when appellants tried and lost the same fraud claims against the clients; and
"5. Whether having obtained the equitable remedy of rescission and restitution from Mr. Zebre's clients, appellants may now use the same facts to pursue a claim for the legal remedy of damages against the lawyer, Zebre."
In a Reply Brief of Appellants, the issues are not expanded, but the following Summary of Argument is submitted in response to points raised in the brief of the appellee:
"I. There is no issue of judicial estoppel in this case.
"II. Claims for fraud have never been litigated in this matter, and, therefore, appellants cannot be foreclosed from litigating those claims now.
"III. Appellants are entitled to recover damages that are a direct and proximate result of Mr. Zebre's tortious conduct."
This dispute centers upon the lease of a ranch in Sweetwater County that included an option to purchase. The ranch, a viable livestock raising enterprise, was developed by Isaac Brooks who died in the spring of 1983, leaving a substantial estate that included the ranch. Isaac Brooks's wife, Patricia, was appointed the personal representative of the estate, and she, of course, was among the heirs. In addition to his wife, Isaac Brooks was survived by their four natural children and a daughter of Mrs. Brooks whom Isaac had adopted. One son was in quite delicate health, having already had a colostomy and a brain shunt at a relatively early age.
About two months after Isaac Brooks's death, members of the Arambel family, neighbors and long-time friends, began a series of almost daily visits with Mrs. Brooks. In the course of these visits, she expressed an interest in leasing the ranch. She also manifested an overriding concern for the future of her ill son. The record demonstrates that the additional duties required of her as personal representative, which included management of the ranch, when added to her usual responsibilities as the mother of five young children, created an extremely difficult burden for Brooks, who had not received much formal education and had little business experience. She exhibited indications of stress including drinking as much as a case of beer per day.
Not long after she expressed an interest in leasing the ranch, the Arambels arranged a meeting with Brooks in the law offices of Zebre for the purpose of discussing and arranging a possible lease. Zebre was acquainted with Brooks, and the record discloses he visited in her home during Isaac Brooks's last illness. At that time, he reviewed Isaac Brooks's will, in her presence, and offered some suggestions as to improvement of the dispositive scheme. Despite this earlier acquaintance, however, and despite whatever knowledge Zebre possessed of the Isaac Brooks will and estate, there is no question on the part of any party that Zebre represented only the Arambels.
At the meeting in Zebre's office, Brooks advised him that another attorney was handling the probate of the estate of her deceased husband, and she suggested to all who were present that the estate attorney be involved in the negotiations. Later, she testified that, in response to this suggestion, John Arambel told her, "[y]ou don't need to talk to [the attorney] because he won't let you do it because he wants all the money." She further testified that Zebre said to her, "[d]on't tell [the attorney] because he'll just tell you not to lease that ranch." Zebre claims to have made several attempts to contact the attorney for the Brooks estate, but the record does not demonstrate that any contact ever was made or that the estate attorney was informed of these matters until after all negotiations had been completed and the agreement had been executed. The meeting at which the contract provisions were agreed upon was conducted with neither Brooks, nor her children, nor the estate being represented by an attorney or any other person knowledgeable in either business or law.
This meeting, which lasted about an hour, is exemplified only by reports of the conversation. No records were kept, and no documents were reviewed, discussed, or created. The parties testified that Mike Zebre, Zebre's brother, was summoned to the meeting at one point to explain the tax consequences of the imputation of interest by the Internal Revenue Service with respect to periodic payments that did not include an interest factor. Brooks asked no questions of Mike Zebre although he admitted in his deposition that he, in fact, did give her advice.
Brooks's testimony with respect to this meeting was that she was not able to comprehend much of the discussion. Her recollections of the meeting, and the discussion relating to the lease and the option, were extremely vague. She testified that she did not remember any conversation concerning an option to purchase the ranch, a forty-year lease, a sale of all the cattle and sheep, or other essential terms and conditions of the agreement finally reached. Ze-bre recalls, on the other hand, that Brooks was "very poised, confident" and that "she was very certain and very positive, confident about what she was there about, what was happening."
Following the meeting, Zebre prepared the contract encompassing the lease, the option, and the sale of livestock as well as the other aspects of the agreement reached at the meeting in his office. On the next day, Brooks and the Arambels again met at Zebre's office and proceeded to review, for the first and only time, the proposed contract, the drafting of which was attributable to the joint efforts of Zebre and the Arambels. Zebre asserts that he did attempt to reach the attorney for the Brooks estate at that time, but was unsuccessful. Even though he was unable to contact the other attorney, he returned to the conference room and presided over the execution of the agreement, assuring Brooks, all the while, that he was going to get in touch with the attorney for the estate the first thing the following Monday morning to make sure that the attorney had appropriate copies of everything. Zebre did follow through, and he delivered a fully executed copy of the agreement to the attorney for the estate, demanding that the attorney seek court confirmation of the transaction because the property still was involved in the probate proceedings. Upon his review of the agreement, the attorney for the estate recommended to Brooks that she return any consideration she already had received and that she seek rescission of the contract. Brooks did not, at that time, follow through on that advice.
Subsequently, an action was instituted by the Arambels for a declaration of their rights under the agreement. Brooks and the estate counterclaimed for rescission of the contract, and they caused Zebre to be named as a "third-party defendant." The product of that action was that the court ruled that the agreement was unconscionable and ordered rescission and appropriate restitution. The claims against Zebre were not resolved at that time. Later, all parties agreed to a mutually satisfactory arrangement to settle the matter except for the claims against Zebre. Zebre then moved for, and was granted, a summary judgment by the court. This appeal is taken by Brooks and the Bank, claiming that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because Zebre, even though representing the Arambels, is responsible for damages on the tort theories of negligence, gross negligence, and fraud.
In order to recover for negligence or gross negligence, the plaintiff is required to demonstrate all necessary elements of the tort including the element of a legal duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Guinand v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 485 F.2d 414 (10th Cir.1973); Thomas by Thomas v. South Cheyenne Water and Sewer District, 702 P.2d 1303 (Wyo.1985); Hughes v. Housley, 599 P.2d 1250 (Utah 1979). The issue of whether a duty is owed is strictly a question of law. McClellan v. Tottenhoff 666 P.2d 408 (Wyo.1983); Moewes v. Farmer's Insurance Group, 641 P.2d 740 (Wyo.1982); Distad v. Cubin, 633 P.2d 167 (Wyo.1981); Medlock v. Van Wagner, 625 P.2d 207 (Wyo.1981); Beard v. Brown, 616 P.2d 726 (Wyo.1980); Maxted v. Pacific Car and Foundry Company, 527 P.2d 832 (Wyo.1974). With respect to questions of law, we do not defer to the decision of the lower court. Matter of North Laramie Land Company, 605 P.2d 367 (Wyo.1980). When we determine, however, that no legal duty exists from a defendant to the plaintiff, a summary judgment with respect to claims of negligence is appropriate and must be affirmed. See Fiscus v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 773 P.2d 158 (Wyo.1989); Matter of Larsen, 770 P.2d 1089 (Wyo.1989); Farr v. Link, 746 P.2d 431 (Wyo.1987); Johnson v. Soulis, 542 P.2d 867 (Wyo.1975).
From the record, it is indisputable that Zebre owed his professional duty to the Arambels. They were his clients, and an attorney assumes the very highest of duties with respect to zealous representation of his clients. Sowerwine v. Nielson, 671 P.2d 295 (Wyo.1983). Brooks's interests with respect to the transaction were adverse to those of the Arambels, and it is fundamental that Zebre could not have assumed a duty to Brooks without violating his primary duty to the Arambels. Hughes. The situation emphasizes scriptural wisdom. "No servant can serve two masters. For he will either hate the one and love the other, or he will cling to the one and despise the other." Luke 16:13 (Richmond Lattimore Translation). In this instance, there is no suggestion of any dissatisfaction by the Arambels with Ze-bre's services, nor do they claim that he was negligent in performing his duties to them or that he provided anything less than entirely exemplary service on their behalf.
Brooks does not claim that Zebre was representing her or that he was negligent in performing his services for the Aram-bels. Brooks and the Bank insist that Ze-bre was directly negligent in his treatment of Brooks as an adverse party. A specific allusion is made with respect to advice con cerning the imputed interest rules of the Internal Revenue Service.
Brooks and the Bank premise their contentions upon precedent from other jurisdictions. Having considered those asserted authorities carefully, we agree with the district court and hold that an attorney owes no actionable duty to an adverse party emanating from the zealous representation of his own client. Friedman v. Dozorc, 412 Mich. 1, 312 N.W.2d 585 (1981). Cf. Chicago Title Insurance Company v. Holt, 36 N.C.App. 284, 244 S.E.2d 177 (1978) (claims of attorney malpractice or negligence generally sound in contract law and not in tort). Any infringement upon this proposition, in our judgment, results in an irreconcilable conflict of interest working extreme violence to the adversarial process as we know it. See Friedman. Because it is undisputed in the record that Zebre was representing only the Arambels, Brooks and the Bank present no genuine issue of material fact germane to this rule. Consequently, the claims of negligence and gross negligence against Zebre must fail, as a matter of law, and the summary judgment as to those issues must be affirmed.
Cases which apparently have followed the balancing rule articulated in Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647, 320 P.2d 16 (1958), are distinguishable because the facts in those instances assume a third-party beneficiary whom the client clearly intended to favor by employing the services of the attorney. Even so, not all jurisdictions have opted to follow the suggestion of Biakanja. See, e.g., Simon v. Zipperstein, 32 Ohio St.3d 74, 512 N.E.2d 636 (1987). The rule with respect to attorneys representing buyers of real property is that no duty is owed to a seller. Fox v. Pollack, 181 Cal.App.3d 954, 226 Cal.Rptr. 532 (1986); Clause v. Manuel, 442 So.2d 905 (La.App.1983), cert. denied 448 So.2d 106 (La.1984). Cases from a number of jurisdictions invoking the rule of privity are cited in Annotation, Attorney's Liability, to One Other Than Immediate Client, for Negligence in Connection with Legal Duties, 61 A.L.R. 4th 615 (1988), § 8 at 634. In the same Annotation, § 9 at 645, authorities are cited establishing the proposition that no cause of action for negligence exists against an attorney for an adversary.
We turn then to the contention of Brooks and the Bank that they are entitled to a cause of action arising out of an asserted violation of the rules adopted by this court relating to ethical conduct of attorneys. The clear rule is that no private cause of action in favor of a non-client can be found attributable to violations of the disciplinary rules relating to attorneys. Brody v. Ruby, 267 N.W.2d 902 (Iowa 1978); Hill v. Willmott, 561 S.W.2d 331 (Ky.App.1978); Spencer v. Burglass, 337 So.2d 596 (La.App.1976), cert. denied 340 So.2d 990 (La.1977); Friedman; Drago v. Buonagurio, 46 N.Y.2d 778, 413 N.Y.S.2d 910, 386 N.E.2d 821 (1978). Cf. Hawkins v. King County, Department of Rehabilitative Services, Division of Involuntary Treatment Services, 24 Wash.App. 338, 602 P.2d 361 (1979) (duty of zealous representation of a client's interest overriding unsupported claim of ethical violation). We hold that no claim will lie on behalf of Brooks and the Bank founded upon any violation of the disciplinary rules relating to attorneys.
A contention also is present that Zebre was performing the functions of a real estate agent, or broker, and should be held to the legal standard of care imposed upon that profession. In our view, the only basis for liability against Zebre is his conduct in his professional role as an attorney, and the rules relating to the conduct of real estate brokers and agents have no perti-nency here. While the record seems clear that Zebre, through his brother, did offer information with respect to the imputed interest rules of the IRS, we can discern no way in which that information would be material to this dispute in light of the fact that the transaction was rescinded. That advice, good or bad, could not have had any impact upon the rights of Brooks or the Bank.
In addition to the negligence claims, Brooks and the Bank claim that fraud was perpetrated on them by Zebre. This claim also is appropriately disposed of as a mat ter of law on summary judgment because Brooks and the Bank do not provide anything other than conclusive allegations to support their claim. Despite numerous contentions of wrongdoing, Brooks and the Bank are not able to establish on the record any actual misrepresentations or statements allegedly made by Zebre with knowledge that they were false and with the intent that Brooks should rely upon them. The omission is fatal in an instance such as this because our rule is that claims of fraud must be plead with particularity. Rule 9(b), W.R.C.P.; Johnson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company of Hartford, 608 P.2d 1299 (Wyo.1980), cert. denied 454 U.S. 1118, 102 S.Ct. 961, 71 L.Ed.2d 105 (1981), reh. denied 455 U.S. 1039, 102 S.Ct. 1743, 72 L.Ed.2d 157 (1982).
It well may have been more appropriate to dispose of this aspect of the case by granting a dismissal to Zebre. Nevertheless, in light of this record, we address it in the context of a summary judgment. While we are reluctant to decide a matter on anything other than the merits, we have recognized that the entire beneficial purpose of a summary judgment could be defeated if cases could be forced to unnecessary trial by the mere assertion that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Fiscus, 773 P.2d 158; Noonan v. Texaco, Inc., 713 P.2d 160 (Wyo.1986); Johnson; Maxted, 527 P.2d 832. When the movant for summary judgment has made a prima fa-cie showing entitling him to relief, as Zebre did in this case by demonstrating to the court that there were no specific allegations of fraud, the burden must shift to the party opposing the motion to present admissible evidence of material facts sufficient to refute the prima facie showing. Connaghan v. Eighty-Eight Oil Company, 750 P.2d 1321 (Wyo.1988). In this instance, without regard to the admissibility of the evidence presented, Brooks and the Bank have failed to assert any facts necessary to establish the elements justifying a cause of action for fraud. Consequently, the district court correctly granted summary judgment as to this claim as a matter of law.
Since the record, and the law, establish that no legal duty flowed from Zebre to Brooks in this instance, the claims for recovery for negligence and gross negligence must fail. Furthermore, in the absence of any evidence of fraud, the claim of Brooks and the Bank to recover for fraud must fail. We affirm the summary judgment entered by the trial court in Zebre's favor.
URBIGKIT, J., files a dissenting opinion.