David L. Randall v. Mauk Miller & Hawkins, PLLC and Joe Miller

── David L. Randall v. Mauk Miller & Hawkins, PLLC and Joe Miller ── Court: Idaho Court of Appeals Date: May 13, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 52670 DAVID L. RANDALL, ) ) Filed: May 13, 2026 Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED MAUK MILLER & HAWKINS, PLLC ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT and JOE MILLER, as managing ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY member, jointly and severally, ) ) Defendants-Respondents. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Derrick O’Neill, District Judge. Judgment granting motion for summary judgment in action for breach of contract and legal malpractice, affirmed. David L. Randall, Boise, pro se appellant. Hawley, Troxell, Ennis & Hawley, LLP; Tyler J. Anderson & Timothy Blair Jr., Boise, for respondents. ________________________________________________ MELANSON, Judge Pro Tem David L. Randall appeals from a judgment in an action for breach of contract and legal malpractice. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2019, Randall pled guilty to first degree murder. Prior to sentencing, Randall’s trial counsel, Joe Miller, moved to withdraw as Randall’s counsel of record, citing a breakdown in communication. The trial court granted the motion to withdraw and appointed a public defender to represent Randall. Thereafter, Randall filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting he was coerced into pleading guilty. The trial court denied Randall’s motion and Randall appealed. 1 In his appeal, Randall also argued the trial court abused its sentencing discretion when it imposed a unified life sentence, with a minimum period of confinement of twenty-five years. On appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Randall’s motion as well as his sentence. State v. Randall, 175 Idaho 103, 562 P.3d 459 (Ct. App. 2024). While his criminal appeal was pending, Randall, appearing pro se, filed a civil complaint alleging breach of contract and legal malpractice against his former trial counsel’s law firm and trial counsel, Mauk Miller & Hawkins, PLLC, and Joe Miller (the Respondents). The Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the district court granted the motion and awarded summary judgment in favor of the Respondents. Randall appeals. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW On appeal, we exercise free review in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Edwards v. Conchemco, Inc., 111 Idaho 851, 852, 727 P.2d 1279, 1280 (Ct. App. 1986). This Court freely reviews issues of law. Cole v. Kunzler, 115 Idaho 552, 555, 768 P.2d 815, 818 (Ct. App. 1989). III. ANALYSIS The issue before this Court is whether the district court erred in awarding summary judgment in favor of the Respondents. On appeal, Randall argues his “lawsuit against Joe Miller” should be “reversed and remanded and set for trial.” The Respondents assert that Randall has forfeited any alleged error because his appellant’s brief fails to meet the requirements set forth in I.A.R. 35(a). Alternatively, the Respondents contend the district court’s decision awarding summar