Hall v. Kalfayan: Estate Attorney Owes No Duty to Non-Client, Potential Beneficiary When Testamentary Instrument Has Not Been Signed


There have been a number of decisions addressing the issue of when it is that an estate-planning attorney owes a duty of care to a non-client in connection with the drafting of a testamentary instrument. In Hall v. Kalfayan, (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 927, the Court of Appeal (Second District, Division Four), in a published decision, weighed in on this issue.

In Hall, the attorney had undertaken to prepare an estate plan on behalf of his client, but had failed to complete the plan before the client’s death. The attorney was then sued for malpractice by one of the potential beneficiaries who had been listed in the draft estate plan but received nothing as a result of the testamentary documents not having been executed.

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Sedgwick LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Sedgwick LLP on:

Popular Topics
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.