Opinion ID: 1258903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Implied Contract and Limited Attorney-Client Relationship

Text: The record is clear that the Atkinsons did not consider Morgan their attorney at any time during his involvement in the probate proceedings. Despite the fact that Scott Olsen, manager of Wetzel, suggested that Morgan's services be utilized to prepare the necessary documents for the probate hearing, there are a number of indicators which confirm that the Atkinsons did not rely on Morgan's experience, skill, or expertise with regard to the adequacy of the settlement. First, all of the pleadings and documents that were prepared and filed by Morgan indicated clearly that Morgan was representing IHC, not the Atkinsons. The Atkinsons had an opportunity to review the documents and apparently did discuss the settlement with an attorney of their choosing. Second, there was no contract of employment or retainer agreement between the Atkinsons and Morgan. They did not hire Morgan, nor did they pay for any services performed. Rather, it is clear from the record that Morgan was hired by IHC, which in turn paid for his services. Third, the probate judge asked Mrs. Atkinson directly about her legal representation while Morgan was in the courtroom participating in the hearing: THE COURT: Have you sought the advice of legal counsel in this matter? MRS. ATKINSON: I have talked to someone about it, but we are not planning on getting a lawyer. THE COURT: Have you talked to a lawyer? MRS. ATKINSON: Yes. I've just asked him a few things about it, and he said that we really should not  we shouldn't have to sue them if they are giving us an offer. It is thus clear that the Atkinsons exercised the right which was theirs to represent themselves and to proceed without the benefit of counsel. It is equally clear that they did not consider Morgan to be their attorney and that they did not seek his advice with respect to the merits of the settlement agreement. In the absence of an attorney-client relationship, Morgan owed no implied contractual duty to the Atkinsons, nor did there exist a limited attorney-client relationship.