ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Malpractice Blogs -> New York Attorney Malpractice Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Malpractice

: New York Attorney Malpractice Blog

Estates and Trusts in the Legal Malpractice World

By (Andrew Lavoott Bluestone)

ADVERTISEMENTS

The more things change, the more they stay the same, say the French.  In the Estates and Trust - legal malpractice world, this saying is illustrated by Leff v Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P. ;2010 NY Slip Op 08443 ;Decided on November 18, 2010 ;Appellate Division, First Department.  There has been a revolution in this world, yet the landscape for a huge portion of the malpractice questions remains unchanged.  
 

New York is a privity state, in the minority of all states, and is a strict privity state at that.  Absent an attorney-client relationship, absent reliance on opinion letters or their equivalent, and absent fraud, one may sue an attorney only when there is privity.

"In New York it is well established that absent fraud, collusion, malicious acts or similar circumstances, the draftsperson of a will or codicil is not liable to the beneficiaries or other third parties not in privity who might be harmed by his or her professional negligence (see Mali v De Forest & Duer, 160 AD2d 297 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 710 [1990]). Defendants demonstrated that while they represented plaintiff in her estate planning and other matters, she was not in privity with them with regard to her late husband's estate planning. The absence of such privity remains a bar against her estate malpractice claims (Estate of Schneider v Finmann, 15 NY3d 306 [2010]). "

"Plaintiff cannot bring her claim pursuant to the "approaching privity" standard outlined in Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood (80 NY2d 377, 383 [1992]). There is no evidence that defendants knew and intended that their advice to plaintiff's late husband was aimed at affecting plaintiff's conduct or was made to induce her to act. Nor is there evidence that plaintiff relied upon defendants' advice to her detriment. Significantly, the standard is not satisfied when the third party was only "incidentally or collaterally" affected by [*2]the advice (see id.)".

 

Full post as published by New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on November 23, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0096 secs (from cache 11/02/26 23:44:41)