Opinion ID: 2570772
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Balancing Factors Approach Under A Negligence Theory

Text: The policy reasons given to modify or abolish the strict privity requirement in the context of negligence claims focus on whether an attorney owes a duty to the beneficiary of an estate. In Lucas v. Hamm, 56 Cal.2d 583, 15 Cal.Rptr. 821, 364 P.2d 685 (1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 987, 82 S.Ct. 603, 7 L.Ed.2d 525 (1962), the California Supreme Court addressed whether a legal malpractice action against an attorney by his client's trust beneficiaries could be maintained for negligently drafting a pour-over will. [6] In its analysis, the Lucas court stated that whether a particular defendant can be liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of public policy, requiring the balancing of several factors: (1) the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff; (2) the foreseeability of harm to him; (3) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury; (4) the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury; (5) the policy of preventing future harm; and (6) whether imposing liability placed an undue burden upon the legal profession. Lucas, 15 Cal.Rptr. 821, 364 P.2d at 687-88 (citation omitted); see also Pizel v. Zuspann, 247 Kan. 54, 795 P.2d 42, 50, clarified by, 247 Kan. 699, 803 P.2d 205 (1990) (holding that whether an attorney may be liable to a non-client would be determined by the six-factor balancing test set out in Lucas ); Donahue v. Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., 900 S.W.2d 624, 629 (Mo.1995) (en banc) (holding that the issue whether an attorney owes a legal duty to non-clients is determined by weighing the Lucas factors under a modified balancing test). In concluding that public policy favored a malpractice cause of action against the drafting attorney, the Lucas court stated: [O]ne of the main purposes which the transaction between [attorney] and the testator intended to accomplish was to provide for the transfer of property to [the beneficiaries]; the damage to [the beneficiaries] in the event of invalidity of the bequest was clearly foreseeable; it became certain, upon the death of the testator without change of the will, that [the beneficiaries] would have received the intended benefits but for the asserted negligence of [the attorney]; and if persons such as [the beneficiaries] are not permitted to recover for the loss resulting from negligence of the draftsman, no one would be able to do so, and the policy of prevent[ing] future harm would be impaired. Lucas, 15 Cal.Rptr. 821, 364 P.2d at 688. Subsequently, in Bucquet v. Livingston, 57 Cal. App. 3d 914, 129 Cal. Rptr. 514 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976), the California Court of Appeals held that public policy favored a malpractice cause of action against an attorney who failed to advise his client of adverse tax consequences for an inter vivos trust and, thus, could be held liable by the trust beneficiaries if the testamentary intent is frustrated due to the attorney's professional negligence and the designated beneficiaries lose their legacy as a direct result of such negligence. Id. at 921, 129 Cal. Rptr. at 518. In so holding, the court in Bucquet stated that the recognition of the existence of a cause of action in the instant case also advances the judicially approved policy of preventing future harm and the standards of the legal profession, a matter that has been of great concern in recent years, both to the general public and to the profession, as well as the courts . . . . Arguably, the interests of a beneficiary are even greater than those of the testator or settlor. After the death of the testator or settlor, a failure in the scheme of disposition works no practical effect except to deprive his intended beneficiaries of the intended bequest. The executor of an estate has no standing to bring an action for the amount of the bequest against an attorney who negligently prepared the estate plan since, in the normal case, the estate is not injured by such negligence, except to the extent of fees paid; only the beneficiaries suffer the real loss. Thus, the fact that [client's] estate was not a party is of no significance here. Unless the beneficiaries can recover against the attorney, no one could do so and the social policy of preventing future harm would be frustrated. Id. at 925-26, 129 Cal. Rptr. at 521.