Estate of Kalinski v. Murphy Law Office, PLLC — Idaho Supreme Court

Estate of Laurel Ann Kalinski v. Murphy Law Office, PLLC, Docket No. 52242 (Idaho May 5, 2026)

Idaho Supreme Court — Docket No. 52242 — Opinion Filed May 5, 2026

In 2026, I argued Estate of Kalinski v. Murphy Law Office, PLLC before the Idaho Supreme Court.

Smith Horras represented the Estate of Laurel Ann Kalinski through its personal representative.

The case arose from an attorney's egregious unethical and dishonest conduct in the representation of the Estate during probate proceedings and a dispute between the decedent's two children concerning the disposition and value of the Estate's principal asset, a home in Nampa, Idaho.

The Estate ultimately brought claims for negligence or legal malpractice, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act against the attorney and her law firm.

The district court granted summary judgment against the Estate on all of its claims.

We appealed.

The Issues Before the Idaho Supreme Court

The appeal focused on two claims: unjust enrichment and the Idaho Consumer Protection Act.

One of the questions presented was whether the Estate's unjust-enrichment claim could exist independently from its legal-malpractice claim when both claims arose from the same alleged conduct.

The appeal also required the Court to consider whether the evidence was sufficient to permit the Estate's Idaho Consumer Protection Act claim to proceed.

I personally argued those issues for the Estate before the Idaho Supreme Court.

The Decision

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court.

The Court held that the Estate's unjust-enrichment claim was not independent from its legal-malpractice claim because both were based upon the same alleged misconduct.

The Court also concluded that the Estate had not produced sufficient evidence of an unfair or deceptive act to permit its Idaho Consumer Protection Act claim to proceed.

The respondents also sought attorney fees against the Estate on appeal.

The Supreme Court declined to award them.

The Court awarded the respondents their costs on appeal but denied their request for attorney fees.

Why I Include This Case in My Appellate Record

We did not win Kalinski.

I include it anyway.

A professional record should be a record—not an advertisement that quietly removes every difficult result.

Appellate lawyers do not choose what the law will ultimately become. Our job is to identify the issues that matter, develop the strongest arguments the record and law permit, put those arguments before the Court, answer the justices' questions, and advocate for our client.

Then the Court decides.

In Kalinski, the Idaho Supreme Court rejected our arguments and affirmed the judgment below.

But the resulting opinion is now part of Idaho law addressing the relationship between legal-malpractice claims, unjust enrichment, and claims under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act.

That belongs in my professional record just as much as the cases I won.

A Career Includes Both Sides of the Result

By the time I argued Kalinski, I had been practicing law in Idaho for more than twenty-five years.

It was not my first argument before an Idaho appellate court.

Earlier in my career, I had argued cases including Parkside Schools, Inc. v. Bronco Elite Arts & Athletics, LLC, Nguyen v. Bui, and Hopper v. Swinnerton.

Those cases involved different clients, different areas of law, and different outcomes.

Together, they are part of the same professional record.

Trials and appeals have taught me that there is an enormous difference between studying a legal issue from a distance and standing before a court responsible for deciding it.

You prepare differently when you know that judges may ask you the question you least want to answer.

You learn to confront the weakness in your position rather than hide from it.

And sometimes you make the best argument available and the Court disagrees.

That happened in Kalinski.

I would rather maintain an accurate record of the cases I have actually tried and argued than create a collection containing only favorable outcomes.

Kalinski is part of that record.

Case: Estate of Laurel Ann Kalinski v. Murphy Law Office, PLLC

Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Docket: No. 52242

Oral Argument: William L. Smith for the Estate

Opinion Filed: May 5, 2026

Issues on Appeal: Unjust enrichment and the Idaho Consumer Protection Act

Disposition: Judgment affirmed; costs awarded to respondents; respondents' request for appellate attorney fees denied.

William L. “Bill” Smith is an Idaho trial lawyer and founding partner of Smith Horras, P.A. His professional record includes civil jury trials, bench trials, and oral arguments before the Idaho Supreme Court and Idaho Court of Appeals.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case depends upon its own facts, evidence, law, and circumstances.