Opinion ID: 2570772
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdictions Retaining Strict Privity

Text: In those jurisdictions adhering to the strict privity rule, courts have noted several policy reasons for refusing to grant standing to a non-client intended beneficiary regardless of whether a malpractice action is brought under contract or tort theories. See, e.g., Lilyhorn v. Dier, 214 Neb. 728, 335 N.W.2d 554, 555 (1983) (noting that the duty to exercise reasonable care and skill which a lawyer owes his client ordinarily does not extend to third parties). First, without the strict privity rule, some jurisdictions reason that clients would lose control over the attorney-client relationship, and attorneys would be subject to almost unlimited liability. Elliott, 923 S.W.2d at 577 (citation omitted). Second, strict privity jurisdictions believe that allowing a broad cause of action in favor of beneficiaries would create a conflict of interest between an attorney's client and third-party beneficiaries during the estate planning process, thereby limiting the attorney's ability to zealously represent his or her client. See id. at 578. Lastly, strict privity jurisdictions fear that suits by disappointed beneficiaries would cast doubt on the deceased testator's intentions. [5] See id.