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

plaintiffattorneynegligencemalpracticedivorcelegal malpracticeduty of care
plaintiffattorneymalpracticedivorcelegal malpracticeduty of care

Related Cases

Sharma v. VW Credit, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 1163801
View Case »
Gagne v. Vaccaro, 255 Conn. 390, 766 A.2d 416
View Case »
Smedley v. Temple Drilling Co., 782 F.2d 1357
View Case »
Maxwell v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.3d 606, 639 P.2d 248, 180 Cal.Rptr. 177, 18 A.L.R.4th 333
View Case »
Com. v. Stenhach, 356 Pa.Super. 5, 514 A.2d 114, 55 USLW 2151
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Pelham v. Griesheimer, 92 Ill.2d 13, 440 N.E.2d 96, 64 Ill.Dec. 544

Facts

The plaintiffs, children of Loretta and George Ray, alleged that Ronald Griesheimer, their mother's attorney in a divorce case, failed to ensure they were named as beneficiaries in their father's life insurance policy as required by the divorce decree. After the divorce, George Ray named his second wife as the beneficiary, and upon his death, she received the insurance proceeds. The children claimed that the attorney owed them a duty of care and breached that duty, resulting in financial harm.

The plaintiffs herein are the children of Loretta and George Ray, all of whom were minors at the time the divorce was granted in June 1971.

Issue

Did the attorney owe a duty of care to the children of his client, and did the amended complaint state a cause of action for legal malpractice?

Did the attorney owe a duty of care to the children of his client, and did the amended complaint state a cause of action for legal malpractice?

Rule

An attorney is generally liable only to his client, not to third parties, unless the attorney-client relationship was intended to benefit the third party.

The traditional, general rule has been that the attorney is liable only to his client, not to third persons.

Analysis

The court found that the plaintiffs were not direct beneficiaries of the attorney-client relationship, as the primary purpose of the attorney's representation was to secure a divorce and custody for Loretta Ray, not to benefit her children. The court emphasized that the attorney's obligations to his client must remain paramount, and the plaintiffs were merely incidental beneficiaries.

The court found that the plaintiffs were not direct beneficiaries of the attorney-client relationship, as the primary purpose of the attorney's representation was to secure a divorce and custody for Loretta Ray, not to benefit her children.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' amended complaint, concluding that no duty in negligence was owed by the attorney to the children and that the complaint failed to state a cause of action.

Accordingly, we conclude that the appellate court properly affirmed the dismissal by the circuit court of Lake County of plaintiffs' amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Who won?

Ronald Griesheimer prevailed because the court determined that he did not owe a duty to the plaintiffs, as there was no attorney-client relationship that intended to benefit them.

Ronald Griesheimer prevailed because the court determined that he did not owe a duty to the plaintiffs, as there was no attorney-client relationship that intended to benefit them.

You must be