Grossman v. Wakeman
To be reported at [volume] Cal.App.5th [page] (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney owes a duty of care to a non-client third party in an estate planning context only if there is clear, certain, and undisputed evidence that the client intended to benefit that third party. A disputed or ambiguous intent is insufficient to establish such a duty, as the attorney's primary duty of loyalty is to effectuate the client's expressed instructions.
Facts:
- Dr. A. Richard Grossman (Richard) was a wealthy surgeon whose 2003 trust divided his estate between his two sons, Jeffrey and Peter.
- In September 2011, Richard met with his attorney, John Peter Wakeman, Jr. (Wakeman), and stated his intent to change his trust to benefit his son Jeffrey and his grandchildren (Alexis and Nicholas), while disinheriting his other son, Peter.
- On December 1, 2011, Richard, now accompanied by his fourth wife, Elizabeth Grossman (Elizabeth), met with Wakeman and changed his instructions, stating he wanted to leave his entire estate to Elizabeth and let her decide how to distribute it.
- Wakeman advised Richard that this would disinherit his son and grandchildren, and at Wakeman's suggestion, Richard obtained a letter from his doctor attesting to his mental capacity to make such decisions, anticipating a potential lawsuit from Peter.
- The night before signing the new documents, Elizabeth emailed Wakeman stating Richard was confused and still wanted his estate split between Jeffrey's trust and the grandchildren's trust.
- On January 17, 2012, Richard signed the new estate documents, which left his entire estate to Elizabeth, telling Wakeman he trusted her to take care of his family. Wakeman confirmed Richard understood Elizabeth had no legal obligation to do so.
- In June 2012, Richard reiterated to Wakeman that he did not want to fund separate irrevocable trusts that had been created for Jeffrey and the grandchildren.
- When Richard died in March 2014, his $18 million estate passed entirely to Elizabeth, in accordance with the 2012 trust documents, leaving nothing to his son Jeffrey or his grandchildren.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeffrey G. Grossman, Alexis Grossman, and Nicholas Grossman (plaintiffs) sued attorney John Peter Wakeman, Jr., and his law firm (defendants) for legal malpractice in the Ventura County Superior Court (trial court).
- During the trial, the defendants' motion for nonsuit was denied.
- A jury returned a special verdict finding that the plaintiffs were the intended beneficiaries, that the defendants had breached the standard of care, and awarded damages of $9.5 million.
- The trial court entered judgments in favor of the plaintiffs after making adjustments for a prior settlement and adding attorney's fees.
- The defendants' post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied by the trial court.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the final judgments and the denial of their motion to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, with the Grossman plaintiffs serving as respondents.
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 owe a duty of care to a testator's potential heirs for alleged legal malpractice in drafting estate planning documents when the testator's intent to benefit those heirs is disputed by conflicting evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Acting P. J. Yegan
No, an attorney does not owe a duty of care to a testator's potential heirs when the testator's intent to benefit them is disputed. For a duty to a non-client to exist in an estate planning matter, the client's intent to benefit that non-client must be clear, certain, and undisputed. Here, the evidence of Richard's intent was conflicting; while respondents' witnesses testified Richard always intended to provide for them, Wakeman and his witnesses testified that Richard clearly and repeatedly instructed Wakeman to leave the entire estate to Elizabeth. Because the intent was disputed, Wakeman's duty was to implement his client's directive, not to second-guess it or explore alternative plans. Imposing liability under these circumstances would subject attorneys to conflicting duties and limitless liability, which is contrary to public policy.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the high evidentiary bar for non-client legal malpractice claims in the estate planning context. By strictly applying the 'clear, certain, and undisputed' standard, the court protects an attorney's primary duty of loyalty to the client, even when there is substantial evidence of a conflicting intent presented by third parties. The ruling makes it exceptionally difficult for disappointed heirs to succeed in a malpractice action if there is any credible evidence that the testator gave contrary instructions directly to the attorney. This precedent solidifies the principle that an attorney's role is to act as a drafter of the client's expressed wishes, not as a guarantor of the family's expectations or a mediator of the client's potentially wavering intentions.
