What pea is in which pod? California probate disputes often involve questions of property ownership. Petitions filed under Probate Code section 850 allow judges to determine whether and to what extent an estate is the true owner of specified property.
Yet how far can Section 850 petitions be stretched? In Parker v. Schwarcz (2022) ___
California law is surprisingly unclear as to whether the notes of an estate planning attorney are protected from discovery by the attorney work product doctrine. This can become a big issue in a will or trust contest when the attorney’s files may contain pivotal evidence as to the client’s intent, mental capacity and/or vulnerability to
We wrote last July about a draft California ethics opinion regarding clients who may have diminished mental capacity.
After receiving public comment, the State Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct has now finalized Formal Opinion Number 2021-207, which is close in content to the earlier opinion.
Opinion Number 2021-207 is useful resource
What are the ethical obligations of a California lawyer for a client with diminished mental capacity? The ethics committee of the State Bar of California answers this key question in draft Formal Opinion No. 13-0002, with public comment due by August 24, 2021.
While all lawyers may represent clients who have questionable capacity, the
We’ve written about how co-trustee conflict fuels California trust litigation and the problem seems to be growing. Trust administration grinds to a halt because a co-trustee (or two or three) is hostile, stubborn, self-serving and/or apathetic. While trusts are supposed to provide a streamlined alternative to a court-supervised probate proceeding, the efficiency may be is
Many family member trustees are uncertain about whether and to what extent they can use trust assets to obtain legal representation. For example, when two parents choose their daughter, upon their incapacity or death, to administer their trust as the successor trustee, the daughter may be unsure whether she can use trust money to hire
A conservatorship, once ordered by a Superior Court judge in California, deprives a person of the right to control his or her financial affairs or person, or both. When the judge appoints counsel for the proposed conservatee, what is the lawyer’s role? Are the lawyer’s ordinary duties of loyalty and confidentiality diminished in the conservatorship setting? Should they be?
These are vexing questions that have led to varying approaches in California’s 58 counties. We sometimes represent siblings in contested conservatorship proceedings, typically in “parent custody” disputes when siblings are vying for control over Mom and/or Dad. The approach taken by court appointed counsel is an important factor in how these cases move forward and it would be helpful to all concerned to have a more uniform approach.
The attorney-client privilege in California belongs to the office of trustee, not to the incumbent in that office, thus generally allowing successor trustees to obtain confidential communications that their predecessors had with counsel. We blogged last year about an appellate opinion that reinforced this concept.
Last month, in Morgan v. Superior Court (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1026, the Court of Appeal found that a clause in a trust instrument expressly allowing a trustee to withhold attorney-client communications violates public policy and is unenforceable. California estate planning attorneys take note: there is no way to draft around the rule that the attorney-client privilege stays with the office of trustee.
One challenge that California trustees face is the prospect that confidential attorney-client communications will pass to successor trustees if they resign or are removed from office. The attorney-client privilege belongs to the client, but the client is the office of the trustee, not the incumbent who holds that office. Hence, the successor trustee generally gets to see the privileged communications of the predecessor, as the California Supreme Court explained in Moeller v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1124.
A new opinion from the Court of Appeal, Fiduciary Trust International of California v. Klein (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1184, further shows the insecure nature of the attorney-client privilege in the context of California trust administration and may lead successor trustees to be more aggressive in seeking privileged communications of former trustees.
The attorney-client privilege, a bedrock principle of our legal system, protects confidential communications between clients and their attorneys, and the lawyer’s duty to preserve client confidences generally continues after the death of the client. Under the California Business and Professions Code, lawyers must “maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.”
To what extent does the attorney-client privilege apply when there is a trust contest, will contest, or a fight over the interpretation of estate planning documents? Usually, the attorney who drafted the questioned document(s) is a central witness, for example, as to mental capacity or undue influence. Estate planners are often unfamiliar with the rules that apply when their work product is subject to litigation.