Opinion ID: 1700595
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claimed Immunity of Defendant Lipps.

Text: In addition to raising a defense of claim preclusion and issue preclusion similar to that of the other defendants, appellee Thomas Lipps asserts that in acting as the school district's attorney he is immune from West's claims. We need only consider this issue as it applies to the claim under Count V involving tortious interference with West's prospective contractual relationship with the Thompson School District. The other claims against Lipps were properly dismissed on the merits. The district court concluded that, in representing the school district throughout the proceedings initiated to terminate West's contract, Lipps was entitled to the same immunity that this court accorded the assistant county attorney in Hanson v. Flores, 486 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 1992). We do not believe that the immunity granted the attorney in Flores against a malpractice claim extends to the claim against attorney Lipps under Count V that survives the motion for summary judgment. That claim, as alleged by West, is a willful tort separate and apart from the activities involved in West's contract termination. It is impossible to determine on the record, as it exists at this time, that Lipps has immunity with respect to those allegations. See Rowen v. Le Mars Mut. Ins. Co., 282 N.W.2d 639, 654-55 (Iowa 1979) (all who knowingly assist or cooperate in an illegal transaction including attorney for perpetrators may be subjected to civil liability); Krause v. Lloyd, 100 Iowa 666, 667-68, 69 N.W. 1062, 1063 (1897) (same).