The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision Monday establishing a new standard for determining when attorneys owe a duty of care to non-clients in legal malpractice actions, potentially expanding liability for estate planning attorneys across the state.
The case, *Despina Alice Christakos v. Anthony A. Boyadjis, Esq.*, centered on allegations that attorney Anthony Boyadjis committed legal malpractice while preparing 2018 wills for brothers Peter and Nick Christakos. The plaintiffs, Helen Christakos and her mother Despina Alice Christakos, claimed they lost their inheritance due to the attorney's errors in advising his clients about their existing estate plans.
The dispute originated from events spanning 15 years of estate planning. In 2003, Peter and Nick Christakos executed mirror-image wills providing that upon one brother's death, his estate would transfer to the surviving brother. If both brothers died, the estate was to be divided equally among two of their then-living brothers, Constantine and James, per stirpes. This arrangement meant Helen Christakos, as James's daughter, stood to inherit under the original wills.
The legal complications began in July 2017 when Helen Christakos, herself an attorney, contacted Boyadjis to help Peter and Nick update their estate planning documents. Helen was unaware at the time that she was a beneficiary under the 2003 wills and had no further contact with Boyadjis until Peter's death.
According to court documents, Boyadjis made a critical error in his advice to Peter Christakos. The attorney incorrectly told Peter that under the 2003 will, if one brother predeceased the other, all children of their eight siblings would inherit, rather than just Helen and Constantine's daughter as the will actually provided. This misinterpretation prompted Peter to request new wills for himself and his brother.
The situation became urgent in January 2018 when both Peter and Nick were hospitalized. Boyadjis received an emergency call from Peter, who instructed him to prepare new wills splitting the alternate residuary bequest equally between a neighbor, a church, and Alice Christakos. Boyadjis brought the wills to the hospital, where Peter executed his will.
However, the case took a tragic turn when Nick Christakos died before he could execute his will. According to Boyadjis's testimony, Nick lacked testamentary capacity at the time, preventing him from signing the document. This meant Nick's estate was distributed according to the 2003 will, while Peter's estate followed the terms of the newly executed 2018 will.
The plaintiffs argued that Boyadjis's erroneous advice about the 2003 wills directly caused them to lose their inheritance. They claimed that if the attorney had correctly interpreted the original wills, Peter would not have felt the need to execute new estate planning documents that excluded them as beneficiaries.
Justice Wainer Apter wrote the opinion for the unanimous court, which addressed the fundamental question of when an attorney owes a duty of care to non-clients sufficient to support a legal malpractice claim. The decision represents a significant development in professional liability law, particularly for estate planning attorneys who regularly work with clients whose decisions affect third parties.
The case highlights the complex ethical and legal issues that arise when attorneys provide advice that affects individuals who are not their clients. Estate planning presents unique challenges in this regard, as wills and trusts typically benefit or exclude parties who have no direct relationship with the drafting attorney.
The court's new standard will likely require estate planning attorneys to exercise greater care when advising clients about existing wills and their beneficiaries. Attorneys may need to conduct more thorough reviews of existing estate planning documents and consider the potential impact of their advice on non-client beneficiaries.
The decision also underscores the importance of accurate legal advice in estate planning contexts, where attorney errors can have far-reaching consequences for families and beneficiaries. The case serves as a reminder that professional negligence in estate planning can extend beyond the immediate attorney-client relationship.
Legal practitioners specializing in estate planning will need to carefully review their practices in light of this decision. The expanded duty of care to non-clients may require attorneys to implement additional safeguards and documentation procedures when advising clients about changes to existing wills and trusts.
The unanimous nature of the decision suggests the court viewed the issue as requiring clear guidance for the legal profession. The ruling will likely influence how lower courts evaluate similar malpractice claims involving attorneys and non-client third parties.
The case demonstrates how estate planning errors can create complex litigation involving multiple parties and spanning many years. The 15-year timeline from the original 2003 wills to the 2018 hospital execution illustrates the long-term consequences that can arise from attorney mistakes in estate planning contexts.