Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantattorneymalpracticewilllegal malpractice
plaintiffdefendantattorneymalpracticewilllegal malpractice

Related Cases

Cosgrove v. Grimes, 774 S.W.2d 662
View Case »
Stellings v. Autry, 257 N.C. 303, 126 S.E.2d 140
View Case »
State v. Gulbankian, 54 Wis.2d 605, 196 N.W.2d 733, 57 A.L.R.3d 696
View Case »
Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278
View Case »
In re Estate of Fairbairn, 46 A.D.3d 973, 846 N.Y.S.2d 779, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 09644
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ginther v. Zimmerman, 195 Mich.App. 647, 491 N.W.2d 282

Facts

On January 30, 1980, May Hubbard Shippey executed a will that included a provision to convey a 67.95-acre parcel of property to the plaintiffs if they survived her. After expressing her intent to convey the property to them, Mrs. Shippey instructed her attorney to effectuate this intent. However, subsequent deeds and wills did not convey the property as intended, leading the plaintiffs to allege legal malpractice against the attorneys involved in drafting the documents.

In their amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged that defendants committed legal malpractice when they failed to carry out the estate plan of May Hubbard Shippey by which plaintiffs would have received certain real estate.

Issue

Whether persons claiming to be intended beneficiaries of a will can maintain an action against the attorney who drafted the will where no attorney-client relationship exists between those persons and the attorney.

The precise question raised is one of first impression in Michigan. That question is whether persons claiming to be intended beneficiaries of a will can maintain an action against the attorney who drafted the will where no attorney-client relationship exists between those persons and the attorney.

Rule

An element of an action for legal malpractice is the existence of an attorney-client relationship, and without such a relationship, a claim for legal malpractice cannot be maintained.

Plaintiffs concede that, pursuant to Pantely v. Garris, Garris & Garris, P.C., 180 Mich.App. 768, 778, 447 N.W.2d 864 (1989), an element of an action for legal malpractice is the existence of an attorney-client relationship.

Analysis

The court analyzed the plaintiffs' claims in light of established legal principles, noting that they conceded the necessity of an attorney-client relationship for a legal malpractice claim. The court referenced previous cases that upheld this requirement and concluded that the plaintiffs, not being named beneficiaries in the will, could not establish a claim against the attorney.

Thus, both in Friedman and in the lead opinion in Bell, the issue of attorney malpractice was addressed in terms other than the doctrine of privity.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the circuit court's order granting summary disposition to the defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs did not state a claim for legal malpractice.

Therefore, the circuit court's order granting summary disposition to defendants is affirmed.

Who won?

The attorney prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiffs, who were not named in the will, failed to establish a legal malpractice claim due to the lack of an attorney-client relationship.

The court in the present case, plaintiffs do not allege that they were named in the will or that the testator's intent, as expressed in the instruments, was frustrated.

You must be