Sisson v. Jankowski

Rule of Law:

An attorney does not owe a duty of care to a prospective will beneficiary to ensure that a client executes a will promptly, as such a duty would conflict with the attorney's obligation of undivided loyalty to the client.

Facts:

• In December 1998, Dr. Warren Sisson (the decedent) hired the defendants to prepare a will leaving his entire estate to his brother, Thomas Sisson (the plaintiff), specifically excluding an estranged brother.
• The defendants mailed the draft documents in January 1999, but the decedent did not receive them until late January due to an injury.
• On February 1, 1999, the defendants visited the decedent at a nursing home; the decedent executed other documents but did not sign the will because he wanted to add a contingent beneficiary clause.
• Rather than modifying the will immediately by hand or advising the decedent to sign the current draft to avoid dying intestate, the attorney left without obtaining a signature.
• The attorney returned three days later with a revised will, but did not secure a signature because she believed the decedent was no longer competent.
• The attorney made no further attempts to determine if the decedent regained capacity.
• The decedent died intestate (without a will) on February 16, 1999.
• Because the will was never signed, the estate was divided among the plaintiff and other relatives, rather than going entirely to the plaintiff as the decedent intended.

Procedural Posture:

• Plaintiff Thomas Sisson sued the defendants for legal malpractice in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
• The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
• The United States District Court certified the question of law regarding the existence of a duty to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire for resolution.