Brief Fact Summary. The Appellants, were high bidders on a piece of property (Appellants). However, the sale of the property failed due to improper procedures by the Appellees, two attorneys (Appellees). The debtor regained the property and Appellants sued the Appellees for losses incurred due to the Appellees’ failure to exercise care and diligence in the sale. The trial court sustained a demurrer by the Appellees, finding that no such duty existed.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A plaintiff must be in privity with an attorney or be a third-party beneficiary to a contract in order to maintain an action for professional negligence.
Thus, the duties or obligations inherent in an attorney-client relationship will not be presumed to flow to a third party and will not be presumed to arise by implication when the effect of such a presumption would be tantamount to a prohibited or improbable employment, absent the clearest exposition of facts from which such an employment may be fairly and rationally inferred.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Do the attorneys owe the bidders a duty of care when the attorneys were employed by the mortgagee, and not the bidders?
Held. No. Judgment affirmed.
* There is an exception to the strict privity requirement for maintaining an action against an attorney. This exception allows a true third party beneficiary to sue an attorney for negligence regarding a contract made to the beneficiary’s benefit. This exception is of limited application, most often being based on the drafting of wills or other documents that have a long or delayed effect.
* These actions appear to be based solely on contract and do not permit third parties to sue attorneys on a pure negligence theory. One reason is the judicially imposed limitations upon who attorneys may represent. Taking into account the fact that attorneys generally may not represent adverse parties, it would be illogical to assume that duties or obligations inherent in the attorney-client relationship are extended to third parties who an attorney would be unable or unlikely to represent. In the present case, the Appellees could not lawfully represent both the mortgagee and the bidders. Therefore, a duty of care will not be extended to the bidders. This court holds that no duty of care and diligence exists from which an action for damages may be maintained.
Discussion. The privity limitation on negligence suits is still strictly applied for attorneys in most jurisdictions.