Professional Negligence Law Reporter

An Ohio appellate court held that a daughter and co-trustee of a parental trust had no attorney-client relationship with the attorneys who handled estate planning for the parents.

Farm owners Thomas and Donna Meehan entered into mineral and oil and gas leases on their property, which generated substantial income. They retained attorney N. Lindsey Smith to handle their estate planning, including asset protection. Smith and other attorneys at his firm prepared various documents for the Meehans, including revocable living trusts. Their daughter, Marcia, was named as successor trustee of her parents’ trusts. Several years later, after Thomas’s death, Donna revised her estate plan. Following Donna’s death, Marcia—who was purportedly accused by her brothers of squandering their parents’ money—filed a declaratory judgment, seeking to overturn Donna’s revised estate plan. Marcia also sued Smith and another attorney for legal negligence.

In the suit against Smith, the trial court granted summary judgment for the defense, finding that the parties lacked an attorney-client relationship.

Affirming, the appellate court noted that in a legal negligence action, a claimant must demonstrate the existence of an attorney-client relationship giving rise to a duty, breach of that duty, causation, and damages. Here, the court concluded, there was no express attorney-client relationship between the parties. The court reasoned that the plaintiff never signed an engagement letter with the defendants and never paid them any money. Moreover, there was no express agreement between them.

Turning to whether the parties had an implied attorney-client relationship, the court noted that under applicable case law, an implied attorney-client relationship may be created based on the parties’ conduct and the reasonable expectations of the person seeking representation. Factors to consider include whether confidential information was shared with an attorney or whether the attorney offered legal advice or services, the court said. Here, the plaintiff testified at deposition that the defendants had represented her parents. Moreover, the court cited a meeting between Thomas and Donna and one of the defendants, in which the attorney asked the plaintiff to leave the room so that he could speak to Donna alone, showing that the attorney-client relationship was formed first with the parents and then with Donna alone. The court also noted that potential beneficiaries do not have the right to sue an attorney who represented the settlor of a trust where the alleged negligence involved pre-death estate planning matters. The potential beneficiary lacks privity to bring suit, the court said, citing case law.

Thus, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s assertion that she had an attorney-client relationship with the defendants was not objectively reasonable in light of the circumstances. The trial court’s ruling was therefore proper.

Citation: Meehan v. Smith, 2022 WL 2527889 (Ohio Ct. App. July 7, 2022).