CASE#: MSC13-01159
CASE NAME: STILLWELL vs. LAW OFFICES
HEARING ON DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT of STILLWELL
FILED BY LAW OFFICES OF MASTERSON [etc.]
* TENTATIVE RULING: *

Defendant Law Offices of Masterson, Calhoun & Lundberg’ demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is sustained, without leave to amend, on the ground Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this defendant. Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to establish Defendant owed a duty of care to her. In the circumstances of this case, it does not appear that Plaintiff can establish her professional negligence cause of action.

In California, “an attorney’s liability for professional negligence does not ordinarily extend beyond the client except in limited circumstances.” St. Paul Title Co. v. Meier (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 948, 950. “The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm to him, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to defendant’s conduct, and the policy of preventing future harm” Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647, 650. The court stated an additional factor in Lucas v. Hamm (1961) 56 Cal.2d 583, 589 whether the recognition of liability impose an undue burden on the profession. After weighing the Biakanja/Lucas factors, the court has determined it would impose an undue burden on the profession to extend liability under these circumstances.

While Plaintiff has alleged she was an intended beneficiary, she attempts to assert a legal malpractice claim not on the ground her actual bequest was improperly perfected and the instrument failed because of Defendant’s negligence, but on the ground the instrument did not comply with one of the trustor’s instructions. In order words, the instrument did not reflect the trustor’s intent. The court declined to extend liability in a similar case, Chang v. Lederman (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 67, finding such cases would expose attorneys to “impossible duties and limitless liability because the interests of such potential beneficiaries are always in conflict.” Moreover, such lawsuits, if allowed, “would inevitably be speculative because the claim necessarily will not arise until the testator or settler, the only person who can say what he or she intended or explain why a previously announced intention was subsequently modified, has died.” Chang, supra, at p. 774.