Under universally accepted law, across every jurisdiction, lawyers owe vital and concrete duties to their clients. The duty of confidentiality. The duty of loyalty. The duty to disclose. And, greatest of all, the duty to inform your clients when their ideas are dumb.
Why is this last duty the greatest? Probably because it’s the most
This blog has previously mentioned the most common question we hear when people find out we work in probate litigation: “What can I do to make sure my family doesn’t fight over my property after I die?” Because I am a Fundamentally Honest Person (FHP for short!), I usually tell them the truth: “Nothing, really.”
As a child, your parents, teachers, and/or some other adult influence probably sat you down and recounted Aesop’s classic fable, The Tortoise and the Hare. “Slow and steady wins the race,” they told you. The slow, methodical, and thoughtful tortoise would always win out over the fast-paced, impulsive hare.
Well, you’re a grown-up now
Traditionally, the creation of a valid will, in California and elsewhere, required strict adherence to certain formalities. Estate law has been tepidly moving away from requiring compliance with those formalities, with a goal of prioritizing the intent of the person creating the will (the “Testator”). Nine states have gone so far as to enact laws
Operators of skilled nursing facilities want their patients to enter into arbitration agreements. While such agreements don’t eliminate the risk of litigation, they at least reduce the expense and exposure associated with potential jury trials.
California appellate courts, however, have taken an ever narrower view of who can sign arbitration agreements on behalf of patients. Just
No contest clauses generally are not enforceable against beneficiaries of California trusts when there is “probable cause” to challenge the trust instrument.
Yet the probable cause safe harbor may disappear if the contest is untimely. That’s the upshot of Meiri v. Shamtoubi (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 606, a Court of Appeal opinion issued last week.
Narcotics Anonymous established a revocable trust to manage its literature and other intellectual property assets for the benefit of its many members. A “regional delegate group” filed a petition in Los Angeles probate court claiming that the trustee was breaching its fiduciary duties.
The California Court of Appeal, in Autonomous Region of Narcotics Anonymous v.
California trust disputes often involve the interests of parents and their minor children. Sometimes those interests conflict. When disputes are settled, who looks out for the interests of children under 18 years of age? Who checks that no child is left behind?
Probate judges, as explained in a prior post, may appoint a guardian
Suing the suer is a common strategy in California civil litigation. A special motion to strike, known as an anti-SLAPP motion, can be a powerful weapon against retaliatory litigation. We have explained the use of such motions in trust and estate disputes. More specifically, we have explored their application to petitions to enforce no contest
Even a court order approving an accounting may not protect a California fiduciary if the accounting is inaccurate. That’s the upshot of Hudson v. Foster (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 640, a recent California Court of Appeal decision involving a conservatorship.
The conservatee in this case consented to the conservator’s account and four years passed before