A Washington appeals court rules that an attorney does not owe a duty of care to a prospective beneficiary to have a will executed promptly, so the beneficiary does not have standing to sue the attorney for legal malpractice. Parks v. Fink (Wash. Ct. App., No. 67527-3-I, Feb. 4, 2013).
John Balko was suffering from terminal cancer and hired attorney Janyce Fink to update his will. The attorney prepared a draft will that left his estate to his aunt and, if she didn't survive him, to his cousin, Terry Parks. Mr. Balko refused to sign the final will until he felt better, and he died without signing. An old will that did not mention Mr. Parks was probated.
Mr. Parks sued Ms. Fink for legal malpractice, arguing her representation of Mr. Balko gave rise to a duty of reasonable care to Mr. Parks as the intended primary beneficiary of Mr. Balko's will, and that Ms. Fink breached this duty. The trial court granted Ms. Fink's motion for summary judgment, and Mr. Parks appealed.
The Washington Court of Appeals affirms, holding that an attorney does not owe a duty of care to a prospective beneficiary to have a will executed promptly, so Mr. Parks does not have standing. According to the court, "[t]o impose a duty in this case would severely compromise the attorney's duty of undivided loyalty to the client and impose an untenable burden on the attorney-client relationship."
For the full text of this decision, go to: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=675273MAJ
Did you know that the ElderLawAnswers database now contains summaries of more than 2,000 fully searchable elder law decisions dating back to 1993? To search the database, click here.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
