Attorney Owes No Duty to Potential Beneficiary

After discussing her estate plan with his ward, the conservator decided to file a petition for substituted judgment under California law and obtain court approval for an estate plan for his ward of which he would be a beneficiary. The attorney appointed to represent the conservatee began work in late 2004 but the substituted judgment proceeding had not been completed at the conservatee’s death in late summer 2007. The conservator sued the attorney alleging that the delay was negligent.

The intermediate appellate court affirmed dismissal of the suit in an opinion carefully reviewing the California law of malpractice in estate planning and holding that an attorney owes no duty to a prospective beneficiary. Hall v. Kalfayan, 118 Cal. Rptr. 3d 629 (Cal. App. 2010).

Special thanks to William P. LaPiana (Rita and Joseph Solomon Professor of Wills, Trusts,and Estates, New York Law School) for bringing this to my attention.