In this case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals holds that a client’s executor has standing to pursue a legal malpractice claim against an estate planning attorney.
Gordon Savoie sought estate planning advice from a law firm. That law firm prepared an estate plan for him. Upon his death, a bank was appointed to be his executor. The bank, on behalf of the estate, sued the law firm for legal malpractice because the firm had failed to adequately plan for generation-skipping taxes. The law firm moved for judgment on the pleadings based on the formalistic argument that the law firm did not have an attorney-client relationship with the law firm. The district court accepted this argument, but the Court of Appeals reversed.
The argument that there was no attorney-client relationship with the bank and therefore no duty is poorly reasoned. If the argument were accepted, no victim of legal malpractice could ever sue if the victim passed away. No such rule applies in personal injury cases, medical malpractice cases, or even breach of contract cases. In all those cases the Estate steps into the shoes of the decedent.
In sum, this case illustrates how when lawyers are involved, courts often resort to arguments that would never apply in other types of cases. Thankfully, the Court of Appeals recognized that this standing argument is formalistic nonsense.