Chase v. Bowen
771 So. 2d 1181 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney who prepares a will for a testator owes no duty to a former beneficiary to oppose the testator's desire to change the will. Assisting a testator in drafting a new will that disinherits a prior beneficiary, even one whom the attorney represents in other matters, does not constitute a conflict of interest or tortious interference with an inheritance.
Facts:
- Lennon Bowen, an attorney, had provided legal representation to Naomi Chase, her mother Reah Chase, and her mother's business associates, the Lavenders, over a period of several years.
- In 1974, Bowen prepared a will and trust for Reah Chase which named her disabled daughter, Naomi, as the primary beneficiary.
- Between 1988 and 1996, Bowen also drafted will and trust documents for Naomi Chase herself.
- At some point, Reah Chase instructed Bowen to redraft her will and amend her trust, this time excluding Naomi as a beneficiary and instead leaving her estate to the Lavenders.
- Reah Chase died in 1997, and her revised will, which disinherited Naomi, went into effect.
Procedural Posture:
- Naomi Chase sued attorney Lennon Bowen for legal malpractice in a Florida trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bowen, dismissing Chase's claim.
- Chase, as appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, with Bowen as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney commit legal malpractice based on a conflict of interest by preparing a new will for a client that disinherits a beneficiary, when the attorney also represents that disinherited beneficiary in other, unrelated matters?
Opinions:
Majority - Harris, J.
No. An attorney who prepares a will owes no duty to any previous beneficiary, even a beneficiary the attorney may be representing in another matter, to oppose the testator's instruction to change their will. A conflict of interest exists when an attorney's duty to one client requires them to contend for something that their duty to another client would require them to oppose. Here, Bowen had a duty to carry out the wishes of his client, Reah Chase, in drafting her will. He owed no corresponding duty to Naomi to protect her expectancy as a beneficiary against the wishes of her mother. Therefore, merely drafting the will as instructed by the testator is not a conflict of interest, malpractice, or tortious interference with an inheritance.
Dissenting - W. Sharp, J.
Yes, the claim may be viable and should not have been dismissed. Bowen's simultaneous representation of Reah, Naomi, and the new beneficiaries (the Lavenders) created a clear conflict of interest under the Rules of Professional Conduct. His failure to disclose this conflict and withdraw from representation deprived Naomi of the opportunity to investigate whether her mother's change of mind was the product of undue influence. While an ethical violation alone does not create a cause of action, it can serve as the basis for the tort of intentional interference with an inheritance, where the breach of fiduciary duty constitutes the required 'tortious means' of interference. The case should be remanded to allow Naomi to amend her complaint to properly plead this cause of action.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of an attorney's duty when representing multiple family members in estate planning. It firmly establishes that the attorney's primary duty of loyalty is to the testator client, overriding any perceived obligations to beneficiaries, even if they are also clients in separate matters. The ruling makes it more difficult for disappointed beneficiaries to sue the testator's attorney for malpractice based on a conflict of interest theory. It also limits the application of the tort of intentional interference with an inheritance against an attorney whose only action was to draft a will according to the testator's explicit instructions.
