Ethics

The unpublished Idaho decision, WIsdom v. Mallo, draws a distinction that left the plaintiff without a legal malpractice claim.  Key passage:

In this case, though Wisdom [plaintiff] is a named beneficiary in Steil's testamentary instrument, the trial court was correct in holding that Wisdom has presented no issue of material fact that would subject Yost to a valid malpractice claim, for Wisdom did not assert that some error by Yost [lawyer] in drafting the instrument caused Wisdom to not receive what Steil intended him to receive. Rather, Wisdom asserted that Yost should not have drafted the will or allowed it to be executed because of Steil's legal incompetence and the undue influence being exerted upon Steil. AsHarrigfeld held, the duty of a lawyer to the named beneficiaries of his or her client's testamentary instrument does not extend to such claims. Wisdom made no averment that Yost did not fulfill his duty to the named beneficiaries by giving effect to Steil's intent as expressed in her will. Therefore, summary judgment on Wisdom's legal malpractice claim against Yost was appropriate.