2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATE - Eckert Seamans

Id.Rejecting revocation and suspension of Czmus’ license, the Pennsylvania Supreme Courtheld that disbarment is the best method of discipline for transgressions based upon such blatantand repeated episodes of deceit and untruthfulness.V. Standing to Assert ClaimIn Hess v. Fox Rothschild, LLP, 925 A.2d 798 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007), appeal denied, 945A.2d 171 (Pa. 2008), the Superior Court was asked to determine whether Plaintiffs had standingto bring a legal malpractice action against Defendant law firm based on the estate planningadvice and services provided by defendants to Plaintiffs’ deceased step-mother.Defendant law firm was retained by the deceased, Mr. and Mrs. Rosewater, to provideestate planning services, which included the drafting of their wills and the creation of varioustrusts. Plaintiffs, who are the stepsons of Mrs. Rosewater, brought an action against Defendantlaw firm sounding in negligence, breach of contract, intentional breach of the covenant of goodfaith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs also sought punitive damages. All of Plaintiffs’ claims involvedMrs. Rosewater’s will, which established several trusts including a marital trust and a residuarytrust. Plaintiffs were named as beneficiaries of the residuary trust.Shortly after Mrs. Rosewater died, Mr. Rosewater withdrew $5 million from the maritaltrust. Mrs. Rosewater’s will provided that her husband had the unlimited right to withdraw asmuch of the principal as he wished from the marital trust during his lifetime, and provided him atestamentary power of appointment, which if not exercised, would result in the corpus remainingin the trust at his death to pass into the residuary trust and, therefore, to Plaintiffs. In theirComplaint, Plaintiffs alleged that their inheritance was improperly diminished and that thewithdrawal of funds from the marital trust was contrary to the testamentary wishes of Mrs.Rosewater. Defendant law firm filed preliminary objections to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaintaverring that Plaintiffs lacked standing to raise their claims, and that Plaintiffs AmendedComplaint was factually deficient. Following oral argument, the trial court sustainedDefendant’s preliminary objections.The Superior Court, was presented with the following issues: (1) whether a plaintiff hasstanding to bring a malpractice suit against an attorney with whom they did not have an attorneyclientrelationship, and (2) whether Plaintiffs in Hess raised a cognizable claim sounding innegligence or contract.In addressing the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Superior Court applied the rule of Guyand its progeny, which stand for the proposition that although a plaintiff in a legal malpracticeclaim must generally show an attorney-client relationship (or analogous professionalrelationship), persons who are legatees under a will “and who lose their intended legacy due tothe negligence of the testator’s attorney should be afforded some remedy.” Hess, 925 A.2d at 806(citing Guy v. Liederbach, 459 A.2d 744, 746, 750 (Pa. 1983)). The Supreme Court’s holding inGuy carved out a narrow class of third-party beneficiaries of the contract between the testator178