## Facts

- James and Cathy Linzie filed a federal civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 29, 1986, naming the City of Columbia, related entities, and several police officers, including Byron Klemme, and alleging the officers intentionally killed their daughter.
- Attorney Robert B. Best, Jr. and his firm represented all defendants initially; Klemme later obtained separate counsel.
- The federal court dismissed Klemme with prejudice on February 19, 1987, finding the facts did not support a claim against him.
- On February 19, 1988, Klemme sued the Linzies and their attorneys in Missouri state court for malicious prosecution.
- On September 19, 1994, Klemme filed a fourth amended petition adding Best and Best’s firm as defendants for the first time, asserting breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud based on Best’s conduct during the prior representation.
- The circuit court dismissed the claims against Best and the firm for failure to state a claim and as barred by Missouri’s five-year statute of limitations, § 516.120, and entered a final judgment as to them under Rule 74.01(b).

## Issues

1. Whether claims pleaded as breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud against a former attorney, based on conduct in the course of representation, are independent torts or are treated as a single legal-malpractice claim under Missouri law.
2. Whether the claims, properly characterized, are barred on the face of the pleadings by the five-year limitations period in § 516.120.

## Decision

- The Missouri Supreme Court (en banc) affirmed the dismissal.
- The Court held that when an alleged breach by an attorney can be characterized both as a breach of the professional standard of care and as a fiduciary breach (constructive fraud), the sole claim is legal malpractice.
- Because the alleged misconduct occurred no later than 1986–1987 and Best and the firm were not joined until 1994, the claim was time-barred under § 516.120.
- Applying the motion-to-dismiss standard, the Court concluded the petition’s allegations, even taken as true and construed favorably to Klemme, established the statute-of-limitations bar.

## Legal Principles

- A motion to dismiss may be sustained only when the petition fails to allege facts essential to recovery; allegations and reasonable inferences are taken as true and construed in the plaintiff’s favor.
- Claims against an attorney arising from the attorney’s performance of legal services that can be framed as both negligence (standard-of-care breach) and fiduciary breach (constructive fraud) are treated as a single claim for legal malpractice.
- A plaintiff cannot avoid malpractice constraints, including applicable limitation periods, by re-labeling malpractice allegations as fiduciary-duty or fraud-based theories.
- Legal malpractice claims are subject to the five-year statute of limitations in § 516.120 and may be dismissed when the petition shows the bar on its face.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Klemme’s fiduciary-duty and constructive-fraud theories were, in substance, a legal-malpractice claim based on counsel’s conduct during representation, and that the claim was untimely under Missouri’s five-year limitations period because Best and his firm were not sued until years after the alleged acts.


Klemme v. Best, 941 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. 1997)