Q1: What area of law does Simpson v. Calivas primarily address?
Professional Responsibility
Q2: What was the central legal issue in Simpson v. Calivas?
1) Does a lawyer who drafts a will owe a duty of reasonable care to the testator's intended beneficiaries, notwithstanding lack of privity of contract? 2) May an intended beneficiary maintain negligence and third-party beneficiary contract claims against the drafting attorney when a probate court has already construed the will, and may extrinsic evidence—including the scrivener's testimony and notes—be used to establish the testator's intent in the malpractice action?
Q3: What rule did the court apply?
A drafting attorney owes a duty of reasonable care to the testator's intended beneficiaries where the attorney's negligence foreseeably harms those beneficiaries by frustrating the testator's intent; privity of contract is not required to maintain either a negligence action or a third-party beneficiary contract claim. The intended beneficiary exception is grounded in foreseeability, the closeness of the connection between the conduct and the injury, the policy of preventing future harm, and the fact that, absent such a remedy, no one can vindicate the testator's intent after death. A prior probate decree construing a will does not collaterally estop a subsequent malpractice action against the scrivener because the issues and parties differ; probate construction is limited to interpreting the instrument as written, whereas malpractice concerns whether the lawyer exercised due care in implementing the client's actual objectives. Where a will term is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence, including the scrivener's testimony and drafting notes, is admissible to ascertain the testator's intent.
Q4: What was the court's holding?
Yes. The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that a will-drafting attorney owes a duty of care to intended beneficiaries and may be liable to them in negligence and as an intended third-party beneficiary of the attorney-client contract. The court further held that the prior probate construction of the will did not bar the malpractice action and that extrinsic evidence—including the scrivener's testimony and files—may be considered to establish the testator's intent and the standard of care. The matter was remanded for proceedings consistent with these principles.
Q5: Why is Simpson v. Calivas significant?
Simpson is a cornerstone case in attorney malpractice for estate planning. It firmly establishes the intended beneficiary exception to privity in will-drafting cases and is frequently cited for allowing negligence and third-party beneficiary contract claims against scriveners. It also guides litigants and courts on using extrinsic evidence—especially the drafting attorney's testimony and file—to prove the testator's actual objectives and the standard of care. Finally, it clarifies that a prior probate construction does not immunize the scrivener from malpractice liability, underscoring that probate interpretation and professional negligence serve different functions. For law students, Simpson links Professional Responsibility, Torts, Contracts, and Trusts & Estates, and offers a clear framework for analyzing will-drafting malpractice on exams and in practice.