## Facts

- After K.T. Henderson died, his widow, Mrs. Henderson, became executrix and sought to continue the decedent’s construction business.
- Mrs. Henderson retained Harry B. Calbom, Jr., an attorney who promptly initiated probate, obtained an order permitting continuation of the business, and helped address immediate business obligations.
- Shortly afterward, Mrs. Henderson consulted Halvor Knudtzon, Sr., and his accounting firm to perform tax work for the estate.
- Knudtzon learned Calbom was the probate attorney, expressed that Calbom was a poor choice, and recommended alternative attorneys.
- Mrs. Henderson terminated Calbom and retained another attorney from those recommended.
- Calbom sued Knudtzon and the firm for intentional interference with his attorney–client employment relationship, seeking damages for lost expected fees.
- The trial court entered judgment for Calbom and awarded damages; defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a third party may be liable for intentional interference with an attorney–client employment relationship that is terminable at will by the client.
2. Whether an accountant’s asserted “privilege” to advise a client bars liability when the accountant intentionally induces termination of existing counsel.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Calbom.
- The court held that intentional interference liability may attach even when the underlying relationship is terminable at will.
- The court rejected defendants’ claimed justification where the interference was found to be intentional and legally “malicious” (unjustified) rather than privileged.
- The court upheld the damages award based on Calbom’s loss of expected fees caused by the induced termination.

## Legal Principles

- A party is liable for intentional interference when the plaintiff proves: (1) a contractual relationship or valid business expectancy, (2) defendant’s knowledge of it, (3) intentional interference inducing breach or termination, and (4) resulting damages.
- The at-will character of a contract or business relationship does not immunize a third party who intentionally and unjustifiably causes its termination.
- A “privilege” to give advice does not protect conduct found to be intentional, unjustified interference with another’s contractual or employment relationship.

## Conclusion

The court held that an attorney–client employment relationship, though terminable at will by the client, is protected against intentional, unjustified third-party interference; an accountant who induces a client to discharge counsel without privilege may be liable for the attorney’s resulting lost fees.


Calbom v. Knudtzon, 396 P.2d 148 (Wash. 1964)