Court Opinion

ID: 9844278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:59:58.273903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:31.461870
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the Court’s opinion.
In my view, the portions of Gil Wick’s March 9, 1990, affidavit quoted in the Court’s opinion do not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Eismann provided legal representation to Wick in his individual capacity. The most that can be said from reading these portions of Wick’s affidavit, and from the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them, is that Wick believed, to the best of his knowledge, that Eismann was representing him individually, and that he was never advised to the contrary by Eismann. Belief and speculation are not a sufficient basis, in my view, to raise a genuine issue whether Eismann was Wick’s lawyer. I would affirm the summary judgment.