## Facts

- During divorce proceedings, Pamela K. Joerger Stephen retained Sallaz & Gatewood, Chtd., and attorney Scott Gatewood to represent her in property division and settlement negotiations.
- Pamela told Gatewood early in the representation that she had bipolar disorder, had attempted suicide twice, and was taking medication.
- Pamela’s circumstances during the divorce included living in the marital residence with another man while her husband continued making payments, and mishandling finances related to a rental property.
- In discovery, Pamela valued the Crescent Rim residence at $385,500, while her husband valued it at $500,000 in interrogatory answers.
- Gatewood did not inform Pamela of her husband’s higher stated valuation and did not obtain an independent appraisal or otherwise investigate to determine a reliable fair market value.
- Pamela entered a divorce property settlement and later alleged she received less than an equitable share because she relied on an undervaluation and was not adequately able to protect her interests due to her mental condition.
- Pamela sued Gatewood, attorney Dennis Sallaz, and the law firm for legal malpractice; the trial court found malpractice based on (1) failure to address her mental status (including not seeking a continuance) and (2) failure to investigate and advise on the Crescent Rim property’s value, and imposed liability on Gatewood and the firm.
- The trial court denied attorney fees to both sides; defendants appealed the malpractice judgment, and Pamela cross-appealed the fee denial.

## Issues

1. Whether the attorney and firm breached the applicable standard of care by failing to reasonably address indicators of the client’s impaired capacity during the divorce litigation.
2. Whether the attorney and firm breached the standard of care by failing to investigate, disclose, and advise about the value of a major marital asset before settlement.
3. Whether the asserted breaches proximately caused damages by leading the client to accept a less favorable divorce property division.
4. Whether either party was entitled to attorney fees at trial or on appeal.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment finding Gatewood and the firm liable for legal malpractice.
- The Court held that substantial and competent evidence supported the trial court’s findings that Gatewood breached duties related to client capacity and informed advice on asset valuation.
- The Court affirmed the trial court’s causation and damages findings that the breaches resulted in Pamela receiving less than an equitable share of community property.
- The Court affirmed denial of attorney fees to both parties and denied fees on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Legal malpractice requires proof of an attorney-client relationship, duty, breach, proximate causation, and actual damages.
- An attorney must exercise the skill, care, and diligence of reasonably competent counsel under similar circumstances, including in divorce property division and settlement advice.
- Counsel must provide information reasonably necessary for informed client decisions; failing to disclose material information affecting valuation of significant assets may constitute breach.
- When counsel has notice of serious mental-health concerns that may impair a client’s meaningful participation, reasonable practice may require inquiry into capacity and protective steps such as seeking a continuance.
- Appellate review of fact findings is limited to whether they are supported by substantial and competent evidence; the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or credibility.
- Attorney fees are not awarded where the opposing party’s position is not shown to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation under the applicable standards.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court upheld malpractice liability where divorce counsel failed to take reasonable steps in response to known mental-health risks affecting client decision-making and failed to investigate or disclose a major asset’s contested value before settlement, and it affirmed denial of attorney fees to both sides.


Stephen v. Sallaz & Gatewood, Chtd., 150 Idaho 521 (Idaho 2011)