OFF THE HOOKOFF THE HOOK
John T. Brooks of Foley & Lardner reports: An important recent decision by a California appellate court discusses the malpractice liability of estate-planning lawyers in assessing and documenting clients' competence. Many practitioners may view the decision in Moore v. Anderson Zeigler Disharoon Gallagher & Gray, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 888 (Cal. App. 2003) as lowering the alert level from orange to yellow.
October 1, 2003
Rorie M. Sherman Editor in Chief
John T. Brooks of Foley & Lardner reports:
An important recent decision by a California appellate court discusses the malpractice liability of estate-planning lawyers in assessing and documenting clients' competence. Many practitioners may view the decision in Moore v. Anderson Zeigler Disharoon Gallagher & Gray, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 888 (Cal. App. 2003) as lowering the alert level from orange to yellow.
In a thoughtful and well-written opinion described as one of first impression in the state, Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline, writing for a unanimous court, held in June that an attorney cannot be held liable to disgruntled beneficiaries when the attorney in good faith prepares estate-planning documents that ...
Unlock All Access Premium Subscription
Get Trusts & Estates articles, digital editions, and an optional print subscription. Choose your subscription now and dive into expert insights today!
Already Subscribed?
