MBE Rules · Wills, Trusts & Estates

Drafting Attorney Liability

Lucas v. Hamm / Biakanja

The rule

Intended beneficiaries may sue the drafting attorney in negligence despite no privity, weighing the Biakanja factors; claims for errors in unexecuted or ambiguous plans face proof hurdles.

In plain English

Drafting attorneys can be held liable for negligence to intended beneficiaries of a will or trust, even if there is no direct relationship (privity) between them. Courts consider several factors, known as the Biakanja factors, to determine if the attorney's actions caused harm to the beneficiaries, especially in cases involving unexecuted or unclear documents.

Worked example

An attorney drafts a will for a client but fails to include a provision that leaves a specific asset to the client's child. After the client passes away, the child discovers the omission and sues the attorney for negligence. The court finds that the attorney's failure to include the provision was a breach of duty, and the child is awarded damages.

Memory hook

Drafting attorneys owe a duty to intended beneficiaries, even without privity.

The trap

Exams may present scenarios where the will is ambiguous or unexecuted, leading students to overlook the heightened burden of proof required in those cases.

How examiners test it

Questions often involve fact patterns where a beneficiary claims negligence against an attorney, requiring analysis of the Biakanja factors and the implications of ambiguity or lack of execution.

Drill this rule until it can't fail you.

Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.