Estate of Schneider v. Finmann
15 N.Y.3d 306, 907 N.Y.S.2d 119, 933 N.E.2d 718 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The personal representative of a decedent's estate has standing to bring a legal malpractice claim against the decedent's estate planning attorney for negligence that causes pecuniary loss to the estate, as the estate stands in the shoes of the decedent, establishing a relationship that is the functional equivalent of privity.
Facts:
- From at least April 2000 until his death in October 2006, Saul Schneider was represented by the defendant attorneys for estate planning purposes.
- In April 2000, Schneider purchased a $1 million life insurance policy.
- Over the next several years, ownership of the policy was transferred from Schneider to an entity he owned, then to another entity he owned.
- In 2005, ownership of the life insurance policy was transferred back to Schneider himself.
- When Schneider died in October 2006, he was the owner of the policy.
- As a result of his ownership at death, the proceeds of the insurance policy were included in his gross taxable estate, allegedly resulting in an increased estate tax liability.
Procedural Posture:
- The decedent's estate, through its personal representative, commenced a legal malpractice action against the defendant attorneys in the New York Supreme Court (trial court).
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, arguing a lack of privity.
- The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.
- The plaintiff estate appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
- The plaintiff estate appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest court).
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 the doctrine of strict privity bar a decedent's personal representative from bringing a legal malpractice claim against the decedent's estate planning attorney for negligence that caused the estate to incur an increased tax liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, J.
No. The doctrine of strict privity does not bar a decedent's personal representative from bringing a legal malpractice claim against the decedent's attorney. The court held that privity, or a relationship sufficiently approaching privity, exists between the personal representative of an estate and the estate planning attorney who represented the decedent. The court reasoned that the estate essentially 'stands in the shoes' of the decedent and thus has the capacity to maintain the malpractice claim on the estate's behalf. This approach prevents a situation where an estate, harmed by a lawyer's negligence, would have no legal recourse. The court also noted that an estate planning attorney is fully aware that minimizing the estate's tax burden is a primary objective of their engagement. This holding is limited to claims brought by the estate's personal representative and does not extend to beneficiaries, thereby avoiding the risk of limitless liability to an indeterminate class of plaintiffs.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to New York's traditionally strict privity rule in the context of legal malpractice. By allowing an estate's personal representative to 'stand in the shoes' of the decedent, the court provides a direct remedy for negligent estate planning that harms the estate itself. This brings New York law in line with the majority of other jurisdictions on this issue. The ruling strikes a balance by holding attorneys accountable for foreseeable harm to the estate while continuing to shield them from potentially limitless liability from third-party beneficiaries, thus clarifying the scope of an estate planning attorney's duty.
