Opinion ID: 1258903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Volunteer Legal Advice

Text: The Atkinsons' final claim against Morgan is that by offering volunteer legal advice he undertook a duty to act in their best interests. The legal advice Morgan gave was an explanation of the probate documents, specifically the order approving settlement of a minor's claim. Morgan testified: I read that document to them and explained to them that in order for the court to approve and sign this Order, that the court would have to find that the settlement in all respects was fair. Not only is the above a true statement of the law, [13] but also the court approved the settlement upon Mr. Atkinson's statement that he believed it to be fair: THE COURT: And your name, sir? MR. ATKINSON: Roger W. Atkinson. THE COURT: Are you the father of the child? MR. ATKINSON: Yes. THE COURT: Do you believe that you, on behalf of the child, have a claim against Intermountain Health Care? MR. ATKINSON: Yes, I do. THE COURT: It's my understanding that there's a structured settlement of a total payout of $900,000? MR. ATKINSON: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Do you feel that this is adequate? MR. ATKINSON: Yah, I do, considering the hospitalization and everything like that will be covered. THE COURT: Do you feel this is in the best interest of the child? MR. ATKINSON: I do. THE COURT: All right. I will approve the settlement. The Atkinsons cite no cases on point for the proposition that [a]n attorney who gives gratuitous advice will be held to the same standard of care as if he were under formal retainer. [14] While some jurisdictions have recognized a cause of action when legal advice was volunteered, we have yet to address this issue. Nevertheless, we find the cases cited by the Atkinsons to be easily distinguishable from the present case, where an explanation of the probate proceedings was incumbent upon Morgan. Morgan's explanation of the probate proceedings, when viewed in the concept of this case, did not constitute the rendering of legal advice. It is clear that the Atkinsons did not consider Morgan to be their attorney, nor did they rely upon Morgan or the probate judge to evaluate the fairness of the settlement. The Atkinsons made an independent evaluation of the settlement and concluded that it was fair. We therefore affirm the trial court's determination that there is no genuine issue of material fact with regard to a legal malpractice claim against Morgan.