The Ohio Supreme Court holds that an attorney does not owe a duty to the beneficiaries of a will, so the beneficiaries could not sue the attorney for legal malpractice. Shoemaker, Exr. v. Gindlesberger (Ohio, No. 2007-0113, May 7, 2008).
Margaret Schlegel hired Thomas Gindlesberger to prepare a will for her that named her children as beneficiaries. She later hired Mr. Gindlesberger to transfer property to her son while retaining a life interest for herself. After Ms. Schlegel died, her children learned that estate assets would have to be sold to pay for the taxes on the transfer of the property.
Ms. Schlegel's children sued Mr. Gindlesberger, arguing he was negligent for failing to advise Ms. Schlegel on the tax consequences of the transfer. The trial court granted Mr. Gindlesberger summary judgment, holding that the children could not sue Mr. Gindlesberger because there was no privity between him and the children. The children appealed, arguing the court should abandon the rule of privity in favor of a rule that allows beneficiaries to sue an attorney who is negligent in creating an estate plan.
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirms, refusing to overrule the privity requirement. According to the court, holding that an attorney owed a duty to a beneficiary separate from the decedent, "could lead to significant difficulty and uncertainty, a breach in confidentiality, and divided loyalties." Though it did not decide the issue, the court notes that the estate may be able to "stand in the shoes" of the decedent in order to meet the privity requirement.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
