Andrea Engelman sued attorneys and their law firm after receiving advice in connection with a real-estate transaction and executing a release. The trial court granted summary judgment to the attorneys and firm on her legal-malpractice claim but denied summary judgment on her claim for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on malpractice, applying Georgia’s judgmental-immunity doctrine to protect an attorney’s informed professional judgment even if the advice later proved mistaken. The court vacated the ruling on the fiduciary-duty and fraud claim because the record presented factual and contractual questions that had not been resolved, including whether the defendants’ conduct involved duties beyond the protected exercise of legal judgment. The case was remanded for the trial court to determine whether genuine issues of material fact remained and whether the contract and surrounding circumstances supported the surviving claim. The judgment was affirmed in part and vacated in part. Two judges concurred.