As a general rule, attorneys aren’t liable to third parties in tort.
However, a July 14 opinion by the Wisconsin Supreme Court created an exception, permitting an attorney to be sued for intentionally aiding a client in drafting a will to evade his obligations under a divorce agreement.
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote for the court: “We agree that in most cases, an attorney is immune from liability to third parties based on the attorney’s failure to perform a duty owed to a client. However, failure to perform an obligation to a client is entirely distinct from conduct that assists the client committing an unlawful act to the detriment of a third party.”
Robert Tensfeldt and his first wife, Ruth, had three children. When they divorced in 1974, the divorce judgment provided that Robert would maintain a will granting at least two-thirds of his net estate to the adult children.
Robert remarried, and in 1981 (and in several later revisions), drafted a new will contrary to the divorce judgment. Attorney Roy C. LaBudde drafted the new wills.
After LaBudde scaled back his practice, Tensfeldt was represented by attorney F. William Haberman. It was undisputed that Haberman did not know about the divorce provision until after Tensfeldt died in 2000, and did not draft any will for Tensfeldt, but was negligent in providing advice in an unrelated aspect of the law.
The estate was probated in Florida, and was settled after extensive litigation. The children then sued LaBudde and Haberman in Wisconsin, alleging negligence against both, and intentional tort against LaBudde.
The Supreme Court held that both attorneys were entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claims, but that the intentional tort claim could proceed against LaBudde.
Full Article and Source:
Attorney is liable to third parties for tort
However, a July 14 opinion by the Wisconsin Supreme Court created an exception, permitting an attorney to be sued for intentionally aiding a client in drafting a will to evade his obligations under a divorce agreement.
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote for the court: “We agree that in most cases, an attorney is immune from liability to third parties based on the attorney’s failure to perform a duty owed to a client. However, failure to perform an obligation to a client is entirely distinct from conduct that assists the client committing an unlawful act to the detriment of a third party.”
Robert Tensfeldt and his first wife, Ruth, had three children. When they divorced in 1974, the divorce judgment provided that Robert would maintain a will granting at least two-thirds of his net estate to the adult children.
Robert remarried, and in 1981 (and in several later revisions), drafted a new will contrary to the divorce judgment. Attorney Roy C. LaBudde drafted the new wills.
After LaBudde scaled back his practice, Tensfeldt was represented by attorney F. William Haberman. It was undisputed that Haberman did not know about the divorce provision until after Tensfeldt died in 2000, and did not draft any will for Tensfeldt, but was negligent in providing advice in an unrelated aspect of the law.
The estate was probated in Florida, and was settled after extensive litigation. The children then sued LaBudde and Haberman in Wisconsin, alleging negligence against both, and intentional tort against LaBudde.
The Supreme Court held that both attorneys were entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claims, but that the intentional tort claim could proceed against LaBudde.
Full Article and Source:
Attorney is liable to third parties for tort
5 comments:
I'd like others to consider the legal reforms which I advocate to address deficiencies in the law which allow attorneys (and judges) to commit acts which are or should be unlawful. One of the problems that I address is the lack of procedures needed to ensure that the evidence needed to prove what took place is collected and preserved at the time the acts took place. For more information, including links to materials on the internet, please write me at tvfields@oh.rr.com. Thank you.
This is very interesting.
Attorneys should be liable for any document they write.
There should be no such thing as immunity.
It's about time lawyers are held accountable for something, finally, for their part engaging in illegal activities.
"The estate was probated in Florida, and was settled after extensive litigation."
Question: How much in attorney billing and legal fees? I have a feeling the final amount is staggering. How many people would have the ability to begin litigation and worse yet, stay with it to conclusion? I am having rapid heartbeat and cold sweats just thinking about this hell on earth.
I strongly disagree with Justice Ann Walsh Bradley (and other judges who believe):
“We agree that in most cases, an attorney is immune from liability to third parties based on the attorney’s failure to perform a duty owed to a client."
Judges and lawyers enjoy immunity, which in layman's language is BS that they are forgiven for all wrongdoing, negligence and unethical conduct from Day 1 from the first hour of the first day that they are declared lawyers allowed to practice law and that extends to judicial positions.
For example: Why is it that physicians do not enjoy immunities?
Lawyers would be screaming loudly, they would then be deprived of mega income - yes?
I'm with you tvfields the legal system is out of control, legal reform is long overdue.
Attorneys should be liable - period.
There is no "immunity" in the Constitution!
Immunity is judge-made "law"!
Check your state constitutions, too: Is law to be made by Bill only; i.e., not by judges?
There is another issue, known as privity, which will allow suit against a third party, however.
Post a Comment