New Jersey Supreme Court Clarifies Attorney Duties to Non-Clients

In a recent decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court highlighted the importance of clearly documenting client intent and the limits of an attorney’s duty to non-clients.

In Christakos v. Boyadjis, 262 N.J. 447 (2026), defendant was retained by two brothers (collectively the “decedents”) to update their estate plans. In 2003, the brothers executed mirror wills, providing that, upon the death of one brother, his estate would pass to the surviving brother; if both were deceased, their estates would be distributed per stirpes among their then-living brothers. One of the plaintiffs (the “plaintiff niece”) was a beneficiary under the 2003 will as the daughter of one of those then-living brothers. However, in 2017, the decedents sought to revise their wills because their brothers had passed away, their health was failing, and they were concerned about the motives of their neighbors who had been assisting them. As such, the plaintiff niece contacted the defendant to help the decedents with their estate planning. She did not participate further and had no subsequent communications with the decedents or the defendant.

Defendant met with decedents, who expressed a desire to disinherit their nieces and nephew, including plaintiff niece, and leave their estate to each other, with the residuary estate going to their neighbors, the Church, and the other plaintiff, who was the wife of one of the decedents’ deceased brothers (the “plaintiff sister-in-law”). Defendant prepared the decedents’ new wills, but in doing so he erroneously conveyed only personal property to the surviving brother, with the remainder divided among the neighbors, the Church, and the plaintiff sister-in-law.

The first brother executed his will on January 3, 2018, but the second brother’s will remained unsigned due to his lack of competency. The second brother later signed his will on April 7, 2018, when defendant assessed him as having testamentary capacity, although this was contradicted by medical evaluations. After the first brother died in April 2018, the plaintiff niece filed a caveat in Surrogate’s Court on April 20, 2018, challenging the first brother’s 2018 will because it did not convey all of his assets to the surviving brother. Following the second brother’s death in October 2018, the plaintiff niece filed another caveat seeking to deny probate of the second brother’s 2018 will and to admit his 2003 will.

During the probate proceedings, an interim administrator was appointed and valued the estates at $915,000. On January 18, 2023, the probate court issued a consent order approving payments of $100,000 to the decedents’ neighbors and Church, a $53,000 payment to the interim administrator, and directed that the plaintiff sister-in-law receive the remainder of the estates. The court also ordered that the modified 2018 wills be admitted to probate and appointed the plaintiff niece as Administrator C.T.A. of the estates. She did not receive any distribution.

In January 2020, plaintiffs commenced a legal malpractice action against the defendant in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County. They alleged that defendant owed them a duty of care as beneficiaries of the 2003 wills and breached that duty by misinterpreting those wills and negligently drafting the 2018 wills. Defendant then moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim, asserting, in part, that he owed no duty of care to plaintiffs, who were not his clients.

The trial court denied defendant’s motion, finding that he did owe plaintiffs a duty of care because they were known potential beneficiaries of the decedents’ estates and therefore defendant knew any misinterpretations of the wills would affect them. On appeal, the Appellate Division determined that only the plaintiff sister-in-law was owed a duty of care, as only she was a beneficiary under the 2018 wills. Thus, it reversed the trial court’s determination that defendant owed the plaintiff niece the same duty of care.

In its decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division and expressly adopted Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 51, holding that defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff niece. The Court found no genuine dispute that the plaintiff niece did not rely on the defendant’s legal advice, an essential element under § 51(2), because she was neither invited to rely upon, nor did she in fact rely upon, defendant’s opinion or provision of legal services in a manner that would create a duty of care. The Court further held, under § 51(3)(a) and applying a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, that no reasonable jury could find the defendant knew the decedents intended their 2018 wills to benefit the plaintiff niece.

The Court also rejected the plaintiff niece’s argument that the second brother’s 2018 will should not have been executed due to his alleged lack of testamentary capacity. The Restatement makes clear that a lawyer is not liable to a purported heir for negligence in such circumstances, as imposing such a duty could impair the lawyer’s obligations to the client.

By expressly adopting Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 51, the Supreme Court emphasized that non-client malpractice claims require clear and convincing evidence that the client intended to benefit the non-client and that the non-client actually relied on the lawyer’s advice after being invited to do so. Here, the absence of any invitation to rely, and therefore any reliance, defeated the plaintiff niece’s claims. Practically, had there been evidence of the decedents’ intent to benefit the plaintiff niece and her reliance on the lawyer’s guidance, the outcome might have been different.

This decision highlights the importance of an attorney’s careful documentation of client intent in matters involving third-party beneficiaries in order to prevent or defeat non-client malpractice claims.

For more information about the Court’s decision, please contact Deborah Isaacson or Lauren Eicher.