## Facts

- Steven Matthew Bevan hired attorney William R. Fix in 1992 to defend him on a criminal battery charge involving then-girlfriend Jenni Jones; the matter ended with a plea bargain.
- Bevan and Jones later married and had two children, Brittany Bevan and Steven Tyler Bevan.
- Jones filed for divorce; Fix represented Jones against Bevan, a former client, and later withdrew after beginning a sexual relationship with Jones.
- After the divorce decree, Jones and the children stayed overnight at Fix’s home with two babysitters.
- During the night, Fix violently assaulted Jones, including choking and severe beating, while the children and babysitters were in the home; they allegedly saw or heard portions of the assault.
- The children later exhibited serious behavioral and psychological problems and were diagnosed as being in significant distress.
- Bevan sued Fix asserting (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) on behalf of the children based on their exposure to the assault, and (2) legal malpractice on Bevan’s own behalf based on Fix’s adverse representation of Jones in the divorce.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on the children’s IIED claims where the children allegedly saw or heard Fix’s violent assault on their mother and later suffered severe emotional distress.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on Bevan’s legal malpractice claim based on Fix’s adverse representation of a former client, including (a) the scope of continuing duties to former clients and (b) whether Bevan produced competent evidence of damages caused by the breach.

## Decision

- The court reversed summary judgment on the children’s IIED claims and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that factual disputes existed as to whether Fix’s conduct was extreme and outrageous under third-party IIED principles and whether the children suffered severe emotional distress.
- The court affirmed summary judgment on Bevan’s legal malpractice claim.
- The court recognized continuing duties of loyalty and confidentiality to former clients and that Fix’s conduct implicated those duties, but held that Bevan failed to present evidence of actual, causally linked damages.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, courts must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.
- Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46(2), a defendant may be liable for IIED to a third person who is present when extreme and outrageous conduct is directed at another, if the third person suffers severe emotional distress.
- A single episode of domestic violence may constitute extreme and outrageous conduct for IIED, depending on severity and context, including children’s exposure to a brutal assault on a parent.
- Attorneys owe continuing fiduciary duties of loyalty and confidentiality to former clients; later adverse representation may breach those duties, including when knowledge gained in the prior representation is used against the former client.
- Legal malpractice requires proof of actual damages and causation; ethical or fiduciary violations, without competent evidence of resulting injury, do not support civil recovery.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the children’s IIED claims to proceed because a jury could find that a severe assault on their mother, heard or witnessed in the home, was extreme and outrageous and caused serious distress, but it rejected the former client’s malpractice claim because he failed to show actual damages caused by the attorney’s conflicted adverse representation.


Bevan v. Fix, 42 P.3d 1013 (Wyo. 2002)