Brian v. Wright, Franklin App. No. 06AP-962, 2007-Ohio-942. The court of appeals reviewed whether a plaintiff involved in estate planning legal malpractice case could sue the attorney despite no attorney/client relationship between the plaintiff and attorney. The plaintiff claimed that a will was drafted by an attorney for an incompetent testator. plaintiff argued his interest in the will was fixed ("vested") at the time because the incompetent testator could not change his will going forward. The court of appeals noted that the incompetent testator had lucid days and by implication could have days where he was able to change his will. The court of appeals relying on Ohio Supreme Court precedent noted that in the absence of fraud, collusion or malice, a potential beneficiary under a will cannot sue the testator's lawyer for legal malpractice in the drafting of the will unless the plaintiff has a vested interest in the will at the time of the drafting. Despite the court of appeals' criticism of the reasoning of the Ohio Supreme Court, it followed the long standing Ohio Supreme Court precedent.
Recent Posts
- Jessica Forrest Named a Notable Woman in Law by Crain's Cleveland Business
- Adam Fried Provides Testimony Opposing Ohio HB 172
- Welcome, Michael Brody!
- Changing Addresses with the USPS… not so fast
- Family Disputes can Wreak Havoc with Estate Planning
- 13 Reminger Estate & Trust Attorneys Recognized in 2024 Edition of Best Lawyers in America
- New Rules of Civil Procedure for 2023
- Avoiding Probate Litigation: Attorneys Can Help Families Prevent Costly Disputes
- Confidentiality and Privilege in Post-Death Disputes: Is it time to Tweak R.C. 2317.02?
- Adriann McGee and Mary Kraft Obtain Jury Verdict and Attorney Fees in Breach of Fiduciary Case Involving Power of Attorney Abuse