(plaintiff sued lawyer for malpractice with respect to clerical error in will; plaintiff was not a client of the lawyer; original will contained the clerical error that was corrected in later will that named plaintiff as prospective beneficiary in handwritten provision; second will was signed but not witnessed or notarized even though lawyer advised decedent that it needed to be in order to be valid; first will (which did not name plaintiff as beneficiary) admitted to probate; plaintiff claimed that lawyer owed plaintiff duty of care to ensure execution of later will; court rejected plaintiff's claim on basis that imposition of such duty would create conflict of interest by imposing simultaneous duty on lawyer owed to both decedent (client) and plaintiff (non-client)).
Parks v. Fink, et al., 173 Wn. App. 366 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013)
Date of decision:
The Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation does not provide legal advice. Any information provided on this website is not intended to be a substitute for legal services from a competent professional. The Center's work is supported by fee-based seminars and generous private gifts. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the material contained on this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Iowa State University.