Personal Representative’s Lawyer Doesn’t Have Duty to Successor

The beneficiary of an estate succeeded in removing the personal representative and having himself appointed as the successor. He then sued the law firm who had represented his predecessor for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty relating to duties owed to the estate and to himself as a beneficiary. The trial court granted summary judgment for the law firm because the firm owed no duty to the estate.

In Estate of Cabatit v. Canders, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed, holding that whether or not an attorney owes a duty of care to a successor personal representative depends on the existence of an attorney-client relationship unless an exception applies. The court then adopts a “modified multi-factor balancing test” under which the first inquiry is whether the transaction was intended to benefit the beneficiary. Here the facts lead to one conclusion: because the successor personal representative was represented throughout the probate proceeding by attorneys with no connection to the law firm representing the personal representative, which in addition had informed him that they did not represent him, the grant of summary judgment was affirmed.

Special thanks to William LaPiana (Professor of Law, New York Law School) for bringing this case to my attention.