Opinion ID: 3170832
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Baker and Kundaâs Remaining Policy Arguments

Text: Â¶51Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Baker and Kunda contend that because the interests of a testator and his or herÂ beneficiaries are identical, there is no adversarial relationship between them, and thus, allowing the beneficiaries to sue the testatorâs attorney would neither affect the attorneyâs duty of loyalty to the testator nor create conflicts of interest. They furtherÂ argue that allowing only third-party beneficiaries to sue would sufficiently limit the potential class of non-clients who can sue an attorney. We do not agree. Â¶52Â Â Â Â Â Â Â As noted above, in a number of situations, an attorneyâs loyalties can be divided between the goals of the testator/client and the beneficiary. See, e.g., Noble, 709 A.2d at 1270; Barcelo, 923 S.W.2d at 578. Moreover, we are not persuaded that allowing only third-party beneficiaries to sue would sufficiently limit the potential class of non-clients who could sue an attorney. To the contrary, under the theory that Baker and Kunda espouse, an unlimited and unforeseeable number of people could appear after a testatorâs death and file lawsuits claiming that they were intended beneficiaries of the testatorâs will or other instrument disposing of the testatorâs property. And even if this were not the case, allowing such causes of action would still contradict the other settled policies discussed above favoring privity as a prerequisite to attorney liability to non-clients. Â¶53Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Baker and Kunda further assert that only injured beneficiaries could effectively bring claims such as those at issue because (1) the personal representative would likely have no motivation to bring the claim (because, often, the personal representative allegedly will have received the benefit of the attorneyâs negligence); and (2) aside from the fees paid to the attorney, the estate has not been damaged, as long as the assets flow into the estate. Again, we are not persuaded. Â¶54Â Â Â Â Â Â Â As noted above, the Colorado Probate Code provides an appropriate vehicle byÂ which disappointed beneficiaries can seek to effectuate what they believe to be a testatorâs true intent, namely, a reformation action. See Â§ 15-11-806 (giving a court theÂ authority to reform the terms of a governing instrument, even if unambiguous, to conform the terms to the transferorâs intention). Moreover, the personal representative also has standing to bring claims on behalf of the testator, see Â§ 15-12-703(4), C.R.S. (2015), and we are not convinced by Baker and Kundaâs suggestion that a personal representative would decline to pursue a legitimate claim on behalf of a testator when the personal representative believes that the testatorâs intent is being subverted.