Papazian v. Goldberg (In re Mardigian Estate), 502 Mich. 154

Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court considered whether a breach of Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(c), arising from an attorney’s preparation of testamentary documents benefiting the attorney and the attorney’s children, automatically invalidated the documents. The Court held, by equal division, that existing probate law and the Estates and Protected Individuals Code required application of a rebuttable presumption of undue influence rather than a per se rule voiding the gifts. The contestant retained the ultimate burden of proving undue influence, and the ethics-rule violation independently implicated attorney disciplinary proceedings.

Holdings

1. The applicable Michigan probate law provides a rebuttable presumption of undue influence, not an automatic or per se invalidation, when an attorney prepares a will or trust that benefits the attorney or the attorney's family.
2. A violation of MRPC 1.8(c), standing alone, supplies a basis for attorney discipline but does not automatically void a will or trust or alter the substantive requirements of EPIC.
3. The rebuttable presumption of undue influence shifts only the burden of producing evidence; it does not shift the ultimate burden of persuasion from the contestant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a testamentary instrument prepared by an attorney that gives a substantial gift to the attorney or the attorney's close family is automatically void or instead subject to a rebuttable presumption of undue influence.
2. Whether MRPC 1.8(c) independently requires invalidation of a will or trust or otherwise changes the substantive probate-law consequences of the attorney's ethical violation.
3. Whether EPIC permits a per se rule that shifts or eliminates the contestant's burden to establish undue influence.

Disposition

affirmed