Malpractice

Earlier on this blog, I discussed the case of Belt v. Oppenheimer, Blend, Harrison & Tate, Inc., ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2006), in which Executors sued Attorneys who prepared Testator’s will asserting that Attorneys provided negligent advise and drafting services.  Executors believed that Testator’s estate incurred over $1.5 million in unnecessary federal estate taxes because of the malpractice.  Both the trial and appellate courts agreed that Executors had no standing to pursue the claim because of lack of privity.  Belt v. Oppenheimer, Blend, Harrison & Tate, Inc., 141 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004).  The appellate court explained that privity was mandated by Barcelo v. Elliott, 923 S.W.2d 575 (Tex. 1996), and thus the court had no choice but to affirm the trial court’s grant of a summary judgment in favor of Attorneys.  The Supreme Court of Texas reversed and held that “there is no legal bar preventing an estate’s personal representative from maintaining a legal malpractice claim on behalf of the estate against the decedent’s estate planners.”  The court did not express an opinion as to whether Attorney’s conduct actually amounted to malpractice.

For additional discussion of this landmark case, see Martha Neil, Texas Opens Door a Crack to Estate Planner Suits, ABA J. e-Report, May 19, 2006.