Case Name: Naomi R. CHASE, Appellant, v. Lennon E. BOWEN, III, Esquire, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-10-06
Citations: 771 So. 2d 1181
Docket Number: No. 5D99-890
Parties: Naomi R. CHASE, Appellant, v. Lennon E. BOWEN, III, Esquire, et al., Appellees.
Judges: PETERSON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 771
Pages: 1181–1187

Head Matter:
Naomi R. CHASE, Appellant, v. Lennon E. BOWEN, III, Esquire, et al., Appellees.
No. 5D99-890.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Oct. 6, 2000.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 27, 2000.
Richard W. Epstein and Stephanie A. Yelenosky of Greenspoon, Marder, Hirseh-feld, Rafkin, Ross & Berger, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.
Donald L. O’Dell of Meier, Lengauer, Bonner, Muszynski & Doyle, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.

Opinion:
HARRIS, J.
Naomi Chase sued Lennon Bowen for legal malpractice because he prepared her mother's revised will omitting Naomi as a beneficiary and instead making major bequests to her mother's business associates, the Lavenders. Her claim is based on her allegation that Bowen was "her lawyer" as well as the lawyer for her mother and the Lavenders and that Bowen was "mandated . by the ethical obligations imposed by his profession" to notify her, her mother and the Lavenders of his "irreconcilable conflict of interest" in preparing her mother's rewrite of her will. The trial court's summary judgment in favor of Bowen is now before us. We affirm.
Although there is no dispute that Bowen has from time to time during the relevant years represented the daughter, her mother and the Lavenders, the record is not clear exactly what, at the time of the preparation of the mother's contested amended will and trust, the nature of Bowen's alleged representation of Naomi was. She alleges only that, "Beginning in 1988 and continuing through 1996, . Bowen drafted will and trust documents for [Naomi] and redrafted the will and amended the trust agreement of [the mother]."
Naomi apparently believes that Rule 4-1.7, "Conflict of Interest; general rule," requires that if a lawyer represents a group of people in one matter or in various matters, he must necessarily get the approval of all in order to represent any one of such group in an unrelated matter. We do not so read the rule. If a lawyer prepares the wills of various members of a family, he thereby assumes no obligation to oppose any testator or testatrix from changing such will. Nor is he precluded from assisting such testator or testatrix in the redrafting. There are no allegations that Bowen conspired with the Lavenders to induce the mother to change her will nor is there an allegation that Bowen used his influence to bring about the mother's change of heart. Naomi simply had no legal right to object to Bowen representing her mother when the mother desired to change her previous will prepared by him.
We believe the supreme court in The Florida Bar v. Moore, 194 So.2d 264, 269 (Fla.1966), explained the principle behind the rule when it stated:
We are of the opinion that a lawyer represents conflicting interests, within the meaning of the Canon, when it becomes his duty, on behalf of one client, to contend for that which his duty to another client would require him to oppose.
It is our view that a lawyer who prepares a will owes no duty to any previous beneficiary, even a beneficiary he may be representing in another matter, to oppose the testator or testatrix in changing his or her will and, therefore, that assisting in that change is not a conflict of interest.
We reject the dissent's invitation to apply the tort of intentional interference with inheritance under the facts of this case. We hold as a matter of law that an attorney who merely drafts the will of one who changes his or her mind and excludes from a later will a beneficiary who had been included in an earlier one cannot be found to have intentionally interfered with the inheritance of such beneficiary. Drafting a will in accordance with the instruction of the testator or testatrix is simply not tortious conduct.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, J., concurs.
W. SHARP, J., dissents, with opinion.
. This appeal does not involve Naomi's claims against the Lavenders.
. Rules of Professional Conduct.
. This would not be true in the case of mutual wills prepared by the attorney. Here, he would be representing two people in a common enterprise and would be precluded from representing one who later wishes to redraw from such common testamentary plan. Such is not present in this case.