During the pendency of a will contest, an attorney was appointed as administrator of a decedent's estate.  He hired another law firm to assist with complicated tax issues.  At some point, the administrator wrote to the tax lawyers confessing that he had misappropriated substantial funds from the estate; the tax lawyers initially attempted to help him borrow money to repay the estate, but ultimately wrote to him (in February) indicating that they withdrew from further representation and advising him to secure other assistance.  In May the administrator died; the tax lawyers turned their file over to another attorney in July.  In September the deadline ran out for filing IRS form 843, which would have extended the time for claiming a tax refund by three years.  In November, after resolution of the will contest, a new executor was appointed and he brought a malpractice action against the two groups of tax attorneys.  Both law firms argued that the plaintiff lacked privity with them, since they had been hired by the original administrator, and the trial court granted judgment for the defendants.  The intermediate state appellate court affirmed, and the estate appealed to the state Supreme Court.  That court now reverses, finding that the state probate code gives a successor fiduciary all the powers that his or her predecessor would have, impliedly including the power to bring an action such as the one here.

Borissoff v. Taylor Faust
Supreme Court of California, July 15, 2004

To view the full case click here (will open a PDF document).