Attorney liability for malpractice against non-clients is limited and should not be expanded beyond what is already identified in existing case law, said the New Jersey State Bar Association in its amicus curiae filing to the New Jersey Supreme Court. NJSBA Second Vice President Diana C. Manning, Esq. and members Benjamin J. DiLorenzo, Esq. and Kyle A. Valente, Esq. authored the brief in the matter of Christakos v. Boyadjis, Docket No. 090214.
At issue is whether an attorney owed a duty to a non-client who was the potential beneficiary of a will drafted for an uncle, the client of the attorney alleged to have committed malpractice. The defendant attorney filed a motion for summary judgment which was denied in the trial court. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s interlocutory order and granted summary judgment to the defendant attorney dismissing the legal malpractice claims. The plaintiffs filed this leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
“Under well-settled New Jersey law, the duty an attorney owes in a malpractice context is generally confined to the client,” said the NJSBA in its brief. “This Court has repeatedly emphasized that the grounds on which any plaintiff may pursue a malpractice claim against an attorney with whom there was no attorney-client relationship are ‘exceedingly narrow.’”
Christakos involved a will drafted for an uncle that plaintiffs-respondents say did not adequately express the uncle’s true intentions. The Association pointed out that, under existing case law, an attorney’s duty to non-clients is limited to situations where the attorney knows the non-client is relying on the attorney’s actions or representations. . “[T]he crux of attorney liability to third parties is ‘the invitation to rely and reliance,’” said the NJSBA.
The Association further argued that counsel fees awards – also known as Saffer fees – should not be expanded to non-clients beyond the already-established limited exception where an attorney intentionally breaches a fiduciary duty owed to the non-client. A prevailing party in an attorney malpractice case may recoup counsel fees based on a Supreme Court ruling that recognized legal fees as “consequential damages that are proximately related to the malpractice.” Saffer v. Willoughby, 143 N.J. 256 (1996). The NJSBA argued that there is no “cognizable imperative for the expansion of an award of Saffer fees beyond those limited exceptions identified in existing case law.”