Court Opinion

ID: 6553324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:31:23.262271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:56:09.940179
License: Public Domain

Wendell L. GRIFFEN, Judge, concurring. I agree that based on the holdings in McDonald v. Pettus, 337 Ark. 265, 988 S.W.2d 9 (1999), and Pettus v. McDonald, 343 Ark. 507, 36 S.W.3d 745 (2001), we must affirm the trial court. However, I write separately to express my concern that our lawyer immunity statute, as written and construed by the supreme court, has the practical effect of undermining the confidentiality and trust integral to an attorney-client relationship and eroding the attorney-client privilege. It also suffers from the defect of threatening to circumvent a testator’s intent — the cornerstone of will construction. A portion of the lawyer-immunity statute, which is codified at Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-22-310(a) (2) (Repl. 1994) and 16-114-303 (Repl. 1997), reads as follows: No person licensed to practice law in Arkansas and no partnership or corporation of Arkansas licensed attorneys or any of its employees, partners, members, officers, or shareholders shall be liable to persons not in privity of contract with the person, partnership, or corporation for civil damages resulting from acts, omissions, decisions, or other conduct in connection with professional services performed by the person, partnership, or corporation, except for: Other acts, omissions, decisions, or conduct if the pprson, partnership, or corporation was aware that a primary intent of the client was for the professional services to benefit or influence the particular person bringing the action. For the purposes of this subdivision, if the person, partnership, or corporation: (A) Identifies in writing to the client those persons who are intended to rely on the services, and (B) Sends a copy of the writing or similar statement to those persons identified in the writing or statement, then the person, partnership, or corporation or any of its employees, partners, members, officers, or shareholders may be held Hable only to the persons intended to so rely, in addition to those persons in privity of contract with the person, partnership or corporation. Upon applying the statute to the instant case, the following scenario must have had to occur in order for the testator to have effectuated her will. First, the attorney would have told the testator that in order for an intended third-party beneficiary to benefit from the will, the testator was required to allow the attorney to notify the beneficiary, or the testator must have done so. Had the testator agreed, the attorney would have then been required to provide the testator with a writing indicating that the testator hired the attorney to perform a service for the purposes of benefitting a named third party. The attorney or the testator then would have needed to provide the intended third-party beneficiary with a writing that expressed the intent of the testator that the named beneficiary would benefit from the testator’s contract with the' attorney. Although the foregoing exercise seems harmless at first blush, a closer look reveals troubling possibilities. Rule 502 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence governs the lawyer-client privilege, and mandates that clients have a privilege to refuse to disclose or to prevent others from disclosing confidential communications that occur as a result of an attorney providing legal services to a client. The Rule defines the term “confidential communication” as a communication that is not intended for disclosure to third persons other than disclosures that are necessary in order to render legal service or to transmit information. It is important to note that the privilege is held by the client, although attorneys may claim it on behalf of the client. See Ark. R. Evid. 502(c). See also Sikes v. Segers, 266 Ark. 654, 587 S.W.2d 554 (1979) (holding that the client, not the attorney, is the person given the privilege and the attorney may only claim privilege on behalf of a client). The drafting of one’s will is by its very nature, a private and personal matter. Our courts recognize this and as a result, have consistently held that the intent of the testator, determined from the face of the will, is given the utmost consideration. See Chlanda v. Estate of Fuller, 326 Ark. 551, 932 S.W.2d 760 (1996); Merriman v. Yutterman, 291 Ark. 207, 723 S.W.2d 823 (1987). Because wills are private and personal, it is reasonable for a client to assume that the information exchanged with an attorney in the preparation of a will is confidential and thus protected from disclosure to third parties. In other words, the client might reasonably believe that her communications regarding the will are privileged and fall within the ambit of Rule 502. However, given the mandatory disclosure requirement of the lawyer-immunity statute, a client who erroneously believes her communication is privileged is gravely mistaken because exercising her choice to will part of her estate to third party beneficiaries requires that she agree to sacrifice her privilege rights. Additionally, Rule 1.6(a) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides that “a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation .... (Emphasis added.)” This rule suggests that a client who consults an attorney does so under a presumption that the relationship is confidential unless the client says otherwise. But the lawyer-immunity statute turns this presumption on its head, because the only way a testator may effectuate her intent to benefit third parties is to agree to expose the provisions of her will to third parties before the will takes effect. Thus, testators are placed in the precarious position of alerting those who may gain pecuniarily from their death and those who may not. We should also consider the effects that the mandatory disclosure requirement to third party beneficiaries may have on the presumption that exists when beneficiaries procure a will. Our law has long been that beneficiaries who prepare or procure a will bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the procurement was not the result of undue influence or lack of testamentary capacity. See Pyle v. Sayers, 72 Ark. App. 207, 34 S.W.3d 786 (2000). Thus, an intended beneficiary who receives the required advance written notice that he or she will benefit from a will may be suspected of having procured a will and may face the heavy task of demonstrating lack of undue influence or testamentary capacity. Also, the lawyer-immunity statute contemplates that an attorney will disclose to the client that the only way the client’s third party beneficiaries may successfully sue the attorney is when the attorney or testator notifies the intended third party that the client intends that they benefit from the contract. But consider the plight of the intended beneficiaries where the attorney fails to advise the client about the notice requirement or who fails to provide written notification to intended third party beneficiaries. The statute shields attorneys who fail to follow its mandate, yet it provides no sword for intended third-party beneficiaries who lack written notification of a testator’s intent to benefit them even if that failing resulted from error by the attorney. The intended beneficiaries would not know their status until after the client’s death. The decisions in McDonald v. Pettus, Pettus v. McDonald, and our decision in this case show beyond argument that the beneficiaries will face a sorry plight when they try to recover damages against the negligent lawyer whose client may have done all she knew to effect her testamentary intent. Thus, in what is plainly an effort to shield lawyers from the consequences their negligence will produce when third-party beneficiaries such as appellants are not protected due to attorney error, the Arkansas General Assembly has created a major problem for potential testators, their relatives, the attorney-client privilege, and the ethical obligation owed by lawyers to clients making wills. When one appreciates the fact that the immunity statute that produces this result was initiated by lawyers, is construed by judges who are lawyers, and works to benefit lawyers, it is understandable why the public sometimes questions whether the legal profession can be trusted to promote the interests of clients above the interests of lawyers. The statute and our court decisions will not improve this crisis of confidence. As Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”