Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

In In re Lohausen, NYLJ, July 20, 2012 at 38 (Sur.Ct. Queens County), the Surrogate Court considered a petition by the decedent’s daughter, the sole distributee and executrix of the estate, to fix and determine the fees of her attorney. The petitioner had signed a retainer agreement whereby the attorney was retained to “probate the estate” and the fee for services was set at 5% of the value of the gross taxable estate. Pursuant to the retainer agreement, counsel billed the client approximately $103,000.00 for legal services performed.

In her petition, the petitioner argued that the fees were unreasonable and that the reasonable value of the services was not more than $10,000.00. Counsel moved to dismiss the petition alleging that (1) the estate had been fully probated and the fees already paid, thus the court no longer had jurisdiction over the matter, (2) because petitioner had executed the retainer agreement in her individual capacity, the matter was a contractual dispute between living persons which the Surrogate Court had no power to address, (3) because petitioner had executed the retainer agreement individually and had already paid Counsel, she was bound by the retainer and the court could not modify its terms.

The Surrogate Court disagreed with counsel, holding that it had the authority to determine issues concerning attorney’s fees pursuant to the provisions of SCPA 2110, finding that there was no time limitation on their jurisdiction. The Surrogate Court further held that where a retainer prescribes the legal fee to be paid, an attorney bears the burden of establishing that its terms were fairly presented and understood by the client, and that the fee is fair and reasonable. The Surrogate Court ruled that it does have the power to review retainer agreements, even after the retainer fees have been paid and the estate closed, even when fees are based on a percentage, and said fees may be disallowed if the amount of the fee is so large as to become out of proportion to the value of the professional services rendered.

The Surrogate Court denied counsel’s motion to dismiss the petitioner’s petition and concluded that an evidentiary trial was necessary.

Read Full Post »

Yesterday, Congress passed, and the President is poised to sign, legislation to avert the “fiscal cliff”.   As part of the compromise bill, Congress included an extension of the federal estate tax exemption amount of $5.12 million for individuals, and up to $10.24 million for married couples (the concept of “portability”).  Congress also increased the top rate from 35% in 2012 to 40% in 2013.    Forbes Magazine has an excellent article explaining the estate tax and the impact of the 2013 ‘fiscal cliff’ legislation which you can find here:  After the Fiscal Cliff Deal:  Estate and Gift Tax Explained

Read Full Post »

As the U.S. House of Representatives takes up debate today on legislation to avert the “fiscal cliff”, most major news agencies are reporting that the deal being struck includes an extension of the federal estate tax exemption amount of $5 million for individuals, and $10 million for married couples, with the top rate going from 35% in 2012 to 40% in 2013.  Check back here for updates.

Read Full Post »

In the wake of the Court of Appeals 2010 decision in Estate of Schneider v. Finman, 15 N.Y.3d 306 (2010), The Committee on Professional Ethics issued Opinion 865; Estate Planner Serving as Attorney for Executor; Conflict of Interest; Legal Malpractice.  The Opinion discusses the application of Rules 1.7 , 1.10(a) and 1.16 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and their affect on a practicioner in light of the Court’s decision in Schneider.

The Committee on Professional Ethics concluded that “In light of Estate of Schneider v. Finman, a lawyer who prepared an estate plan for a client may agree to act as counsel to the executor after the client’s death as long as the lawyer does not perceive a colorable claim for legal malpractice before or during the representation of the executor.  However, if the lawyer does perceive a colorable claim for legal malpractice before or during representation,  then the client is nonconsentable and the lawyer (and all other lawyers associated with his firm) must decline or withdraw from representation and the lawyer must inform the executor of the facts giving rise to the claim.”

Visit NYSBA by clicking here to read Ethics Opinion 865.

Read Full Post »

The New York Court of Appeals in Schneider v. Finmann, 15 NY3d 306 (June 17, 2010) has at best relaxed and at worst uprooted the long standing precedent that an estate planning attorney could not be sued for legal malpractice after the death of the client by the personal representative, beneficiaries or any other person.  This precedent has long been based on the principle that there was no privity between a decedent’s Estate and the estate planning attorney, such privity only existed between the decedent and the attorney.  Based on this precedent, a personal representative has not had standing to bring a malpractice suit against an allegedly negligent estate planning attorney.  The Court’s ruling opens the door to possible negligence actions against estate planning attorneys and highlights the need for attorneys to exercise great care if practicing in this area.

In Schneider, the personal representative for the estate asserted a claim against the estate planning attorney for negligently advising the decedent regarding the transfer of a life insurance policy, or in the alternative, not advising him at all.  The decedent had transferred a life insurance policy several times during life and had failed to name a beneficiary upon the last transfer before his death, thus the death benefit came into the estate and was included in his taxable estate.  The personal representative filed suit for the alleged negligent legal advice.  The lower court dismissed and the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.

The Court of Appeals however, being careful not to comment on the merits of the claim itself, held that “privity, or a relationship sufficiently approaching privity, exists between the personal representative of an estate and the es  tate planning attorney.”  In doing so, the Court has created a level of privity that has never existed before in New York State.  The Court was careful to point out however that no such privity exists between beneficiaries of an estate or third parties and the estate planning attorney. 

The Court of Appeals relied heavily on a Texas Supreme Court opinion, Belt v. Oppenheimer, 192 S.W.3d 780 (Texas 2006), wherein the Texas Court reasoned that given that the negligent legal advice would have occurred during the decedent’s lifetime, the fact that the damages did not occur until after death should not bar suit.  The Court ruled that in effect, the decedent’s Estate stands in the shoes of the decedent after death and the suit that could have been brought during the decedent’s lifetime survives his death. 

While it is too soon to know the practical affect that Schneider will have in New York, it is clear that the estate planning practitioner needs to exercise great care when working with a client.  It also remains to be seen what affect this decision and the decisions that come down following its precedent will have on malpractice insurance policies and rates as it pertains to estate planning.  This decision is also sure to cause the casual estate planning practitioner pause as the days of “dabbling” in estate planning or writing a will here and there are fading away.  The casual estate planner will take a hard look at their practice in light of this new privity which creates one more avenue for bringing a malpractice claim.

Read Full Post »

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!

Read Full Post »