Lucas v. Hamm

Summary

The Supreme Court of California held that intended beneficiaries of a will may bring negligence and third-party-beneficiary contract claims against the attorney who drafted the will, notwithstanding the absence of privity. The court nevertheless concluded that the alleged drafting error involving the rule against perpetuities and restraints on alienation did not establish negligence or breach of contract because the issue was sufficiently complex that an attorney of ordinary skill might have made the error. The court also affirmed dismissal of a separate negligence claim concerning the scope of releases in a will-contest settlement.

Holdings

1. Lack of contractual privity does not preclude an intended beneficiary from maintaining a tort action against an attorney for negligent drafting of a will.
2. An intended beneficiary of a will who loses testamentary rights because the attorney drafting the will failed to fulfill the attorney's contractual obligations may recover as a third-party beneficiary.
3. An attorney is not liable for every mistake and is not liable for an error concerning a legal question on which reasonable doubt may be entertained by well-informed lawyers; the alleged drafting error did not establish negligence or breach of contract under the circumstances pleaded.
4. The allegations that the attorney failed to obtain broader releases did not state a negligence claim because the complaint did not allege that the contestants were willing to sign broader releases or that the attorney could have secured them.

Questions Presented

1. Whether beneficiaries who were not in privity with an attorney hired to draft a will may recover in negligence for losses caused by negligent drafting.
2. Whether intended beneficiaries of a will may recover as third-party beneficiaries for the attorney's breach of the contract with the testator to draft the will.
3. Whether the alleged error in drafting the testamentary trust established negligence or breach of contract under the professional standard applicable to attorneys.
4. Whether the allegations concerning inadequate releases in a will-contest settlement stated a cause of action for negligence.

Disposition

affirmed