|
4865 REVIEW DENIED An attorney estate planner owes no duty of care to unnamed potential beneficiaries, or to an expressly named beneficiary who alleges that the testator intended to increase a bequest and would have done so but for the attorney's negligence; in carrying out a testator's instructions by demanding the testator's widow vacate the marital residence, an attorney did not act outrageously; a demand to vacate sent to a testator's widow pursuant to the testator's instructions is protected by the Litigation Privilege.CitationCHANG v LEDERMAN (Beneficiary Duty) 172 CA4 67 [See: CivC 47; Biakanja v Irving 49 C2 647; Lucas v Hamm 56 C2 583; Moore v Anderson 109 CA4 1287, T/AT 7/03]
|
|
