Ratdavone and Mark Stanton sued their former attorneys and law firm for legal malpractice, misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Court of Appeals of Georgia reviewed summary judgment rulings in the defendants’ favor. It affirmed portions of the judgment but vacated other portions because the trial court relied on authority that had later been disapproved and therefore had not applied the correct legal framework. The court remanded the malpractice, misrepresentation, fiduciary-duty, and contract claims for further proceedings under the governing standards.