Fiancee’s Suit Sinks for Lack of Privity

Despite a $250,000 judgment at trial, the fiancée of a deceased postal worker came up short in the District Columbia Court of Appeals, based on lack of privity between her and the lawyers who mismanaged the decedent’s divorce. 

In Scott v. Burgin, the fiancée and the decedent had lived together for years, and he filled out forms to make her the beneficiary of his Post Office retirement benefits.  In January 2006, the fiancée met with a lawyer and asked him to take care of decedent’s divorce from his wife, while also discussing the pension issue with him. 

Almost two years later the lawyer served a divorce complaint on decedent’s wife.  However, when decedent died in April 2008 he was still married, and therefore the Post Office denied the fiancée’s claim to survivor benefits, which went to decedent’s wife. 

Reversing the trial court, the court of appeals held that the fiancée lacked standing and was not within the lawyer’s “ambit of care.”  The court further stated that lawyers have duties to their clients, not to third parties.  The take away from this case is to recognize that a lawyer has a duty of care that can extend beyond those strictly in privity with the lawyer-client contract.  Because jurisdictions differ, it is important to evaluate and analyze your risk of exposure to claims from third parties.

See Karen Rubin, Lack of Privity Sinks Fiancee’s Suit Against Divorce Lawyer, The Law for Lawyers Today, Sept. 25, 2014.