of Kansas law apply to the dismissal of the claims against Messrs. Wisler and Trevino, we first analyze the Kansas caselaw to establish the relevant legal principles before applying them to these claims. 1. Kansas Caselaw Characterizing Legal Malpractice Claims Under Kansas law, “[ljegal and medical malpractice generally constitute both a tort and a breach of contract.” Pancake House, Inc. v. Redmond, 239 Kan. 83, 716 P.2d 575, 578 (1986). However, Kansas cases distinguish tort and contract malpractice claims by asking “whether the actions or omissions complained of constitute a violation of duties imposed by law, or of duties arising by virtue of the alleged express agreement between the parties.” Id. (citing Malone v. Univ. of Kan. Med. Ctr., 220 Kan. 371, 552 P.2d 885, 888-89 (1976) (<HOLDING>)). The leading Kansas case on the
holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference holding that the plaintiffs complaint stated an enforceable claim for wrongful discharge where the employee was wrongfully discharged in retaliation for refusing to testify falsely in a medical malpractice case holding that complaint alleging that creditors failed to comply with the notice provisions contained in the security deed stated a claim for breach of contract holding that as a matter of law claim stated in amended complaint did not relate back to original complaint holding that a complaint stated a claim for tortious medical malpractice rather than breach of contract where the gravamen of the complaint was failure to provide necessary complete competent and authorized treatment emphasis omitted