Colorado's highest court refuses to expand attorney liability for malpractice to non-client beneficiaries except in cases in which the attorney has committed fraud or a malicious or tortious act. Baker v. Wood, Ris & Hames (Colo., No. 13SC554, Jan. 19, 2016).
Floyd Baker hired the law firm of Wood, Ris & Hames to prepare his estate plan. The attorneys prepared a will that left bequests to his children and stepchildren and set up two trusts. Many of Mr. Baker's assets were jointly owned with his wife. Once Mr. Baker's wife died, her stepchildren ended up receiving more of Mr. Baker's estate than Mr. Baker's children.
Mr. Baker's children sued the law firm, arguing that the lawyers failed to advise Mr. Baker on the impact of joint tenancy and helped Mrs. Baker controvert Mr. Baker's plan. The trial court dismissed the claims against the law firm, holding that the children did not have standing to sue. On appeal, the children asked the court to recognize an exception to the strict privity rule that prevented non-clients from suing an attorney for legal malpractice. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, and the children appealed.
The Colorado Supreme Court affirms, holding that an attorney is liable to a non-client only in the narrow set of circumstances in which the attorney has committed fraud or a malicious or tortious act, including negligent misrepresentation. The court notes that even if attorney liability were expanded, there is no evidence of negligence by the law firm in this case because the children received exactly what Mr. Baker's will stated they would.
For the full text of this decision, go to: https://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=10065&courtid=2
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.
