Recent Decisions on Attorney Liability to Non-Clients in Estate Planning

Estate planning is, by its nature, a discipline where the attorney serves one person who hopes to benefit others. As a result, the attorney-client relationship has consequences radiating out to people who were never parties to it. While the client sits across the desk, gives instructions, and signs documents, the beneficiaries generally learn what those documents say only after the client is gone. That structural asymmetry
inexorably leads to a thorny legal question, namely: when the client has died and something may have gone wrong, can a disappointed beneficiary sue the attorney? This question goes to the heart of where an attorney’s loyalty lies, what an attorney can reasonably be expected to anticipate, and how far professional liability should extend into relationships the attorney never undertook.

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s January 2026 decision in Christakos v. Boyadjis, 348 A.3d 966 (2026), in which the court rejected a non-client’s malpractice claim against an estate planning attorney, provides a natural starting point for examining this issue. Christakos reflects a broader trend in recent decisions from California, New York, Missouri, Alaska, New Mexico, and Connecticut. The cases examined here show that courts that have largely—but not exclusively—continued to garrison protective barriers around the estate planning attorney-client relationship.

Click here to continue reading a PDF of the article.

Click here to continue reading from the New Jersey Law Journal.