Cited by

Co., (insurer bad faith failure to settle); Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners, 155 Ariz. 519, 523, (“As a matter of public policy, attorneys, accountants, and other professionals owe special duties to their clients, and breaches of those duties are generally recognized as torts.”).

¶ 37 , our supreme court considered whether a successful party may recover attorneys’ fees in a malpractice action in which a contractual relationship also had existed.

She cites Trebilcox v. Brown & Bain, P.A., P.2d 45 (App. 1982), P.2d 1218 (1987), for the proposition that a trial court may not make an award of fees once a notice of appeal has been filed.

4 In relationships between professionals and their clients, “the law imposes special duties to all within the foreseeable range of harm as a matter of public policy, regardless of whether there is a contract, express or implied, and generally regardless of what its covenants may be.” Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D

Furthermore, in Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D , , (emphasis added), our supreme court clarified that, “[w]here .

In the trial court, Landlord argued that Grubb & Ellis breached an implied contractual promise to render competent service, Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D, , and that Grubb & Ellis breached a fiduciary duty owed it, -101 , -92 (2000), therefore entitling it to indemnity under common-law indemnity principles.

(stating implied in law contracts are “obligations ‘created by the law without regard to expressions of assent by either words or acts.’” (citations omitted)).

“As a matter of public policy, attorneys, accountants, and other professionals owe special duties to their clients, *406 and breaches of those duties are generally recognized as torts.”

P.2d 1218 (1987), our supreme court held that attorneys’ fees could be awarded under § 12-341.01(A) for claims arising out of express and implied-in-fact contracts but not for claims arising out of implied-in-law contracts.

& Trust Co., , (opposing party’s lack of standing is not jurisdictional and may be waived if not timely raised), overruled on other grounds by Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D

¶ 32 A malpractice action may be founded on contract if “the duty breached is not imposed by law, but is a duty created by the contractual relationship, and would not exist ‘but for’ the contract.” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Western Tech., Inc., , (-24 , -23 (1987)).

Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D, , (citing 1 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts §§ 18, 19, at 39, 44 (1963)).

the duty breached is not imposed by law, but is a duty created by the contractual relationship, and would not exist ‘but for’ the contract, then breach of either express covenants or those necessarily implied from them sounds in contract.” Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners A-D, et al., , (citations omitted).

88 , (when appeal to higher court has been perfected, trial court loses all jurisdiction except that in furtherance of appeal; thus, trial court may not award attorney’s fees pursuant to § 12-341.01(A) when notice of appeal has been filed from judgment on underlying contract claim on which award based), overruled on other grounds, Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D

See, e.g., Trebilcox v. Brown & Bain, P.A., , (court of appeals reaching issues not necessary to holding to assist trial court on remand), disapproved on other grounds, Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D

¶22 The landscape of “arising out of a contract” analysis was transformed in 1987 with the supreme court’s

aff'd in part, vacated in part

Lew-in v. Miller Wagner & Co., Ltd., , , 722 P,2d 983, 989 (App.1986) (claim arose from “breach of an independent duty inherent in the legal relationship created by the trial court’s order appointing” a re

See Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D, , -94 , -49 (1985).

Co., 145 Conn. 451 , 144 A.2d 56 (1958), cited in Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D

See Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners

where the court held that “[ajbsent some special contractual agreement or undertaking between those in the professional relationship ...