was insufficient to transform the School District into his fiduciary. With respect to Dunn’s claim for breach of a duty of loyalty, the Supreme Court of South Dakota has recognized the existence of á duty of loyalty in certain circumstances. See In re Estate of Moncur, 812 N.W.2d 485, 488 (S.D.2012) (noting that a trustee owes a duty of loyalty to beneficiaries of a trust); Behrens v. Wedmore, 698 N.W.2d 555, 576 (S.D.2005) (recognizing that attorneys owe their clients a duty of loyalty); Setliff v. Stewart, 694 N.W.2d 859, 867 (S.D.2005) (stating that employees may owe their employers a duty of loyalty); Dinsmore v. Piper Jaffray, Inc., 593 N.W.2d 41, 46 (S.D.1999) (finding that securities brokers owe their clients a duty of loyalty); Hurney v. Locke, 308 N.W.2d 764, 768-69 (S.D.1981) (<HOLDING>). None of these circumstances exist here,
holding that in preparing an estate plan and distributing property either through a will or through inter vivos trusts attorneys can have only one client to whom they owe a duty of undivided loyalty holding that a real estate agent does not owe a buyer a duty independent of the agency relationship with the seller holding that real estate agents owe their  clients a duty of loyalty holding that officers owe a duty to the public to detect and investigate crime but owe no duty to individuals for negligent investigation recognizing that an attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client