Case Brief Lucas V. Ham

Facts:
Plaintiffs, intended beneficiaries of the will of Eugene Emmick, brought a malpractice action against Defendant, the law firm L.S. Hamm, for preparing a will with a provision that washeld to violating the Rule Against Perpetuities. This alleged negligence deprived them of the proceeds from a residual trust, and they brought a malpractice action against Defendant which wasdismissed by the lower court. Plaintiffs now appeal.
Issues:
1. May a lawyer’s duty of care extend to no client beneficiaries of a client’s will?
2. May a beneficiary of a will bring an actionagainst the drafter for negligently preparing the will so as to damage the recovery that the testator intended?
3. Should a lawyer be liable for a reasonable mistake of law regarding the Rule againstPerpetuities in California?
Analysis Authority:
1. Although Defendant had a duty to the intended beneficiaries as well as the client, but he should not be liable for his reasonable mistakeregarding the Rule against perpetuities.
2. When is part of the consideration that a third party be the beneficiary of the breacher’s performance, then the third party has a contract action againstthe breacher.
3. Lack of privity should not bar plaintiff’s claim against defendant under these circumstances. This is not an undue burden on attorneys, especially considering that a contraryconclusion would force innocent beneficiaries to bear the loss of an attorney’s negligence.

Conclusion:
1. No. A third party beneficiary to a will does not have an action against the draftingattorney for negligent drafting because he is not privy to the contract.
2. Yes. Where a contracting party knows that the purpose of the contract is to benefit a third party, then the third party hasa right of recovery against the breaching party.
3. No. Any reasonable attorney could have made the same mistake, as this is one of the most confusing and hazardous areas of California law.