Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability
New Jersey Defines When Attorneys Owe Duties to Non-Client
Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability March 2026 - CASE LAW UPDATE
March 1, 2026
Christakos v. Boyadjis, 262 N.J. 447 (2026)
When does an attorney owe a non-client a duty of care? And when can that non-client bring forth an action for legal malpractice? Christakos v. Boyadjis, 262 N.J. 447 (2026), undertakes these questions and considers the appropriate standard.
In the present matter, the plaintiffs brought suit against the attorney that prepared the wills of their two family members, alleging legal malpractice. The two plaintiffs were the sister-in-law and niece to the decedents. The decedents were brothers and, in 2003, they executed mirror image wills, along with completing powers of attorney (POA) documents in 2001. As a result of these documents, the plaintiffs stood to inherit part of the estate, and one plaintiff was attorney-in-fact under the POA. However, the plaintiffs had no knowledge of this or the testamentary documents.
In 2017, the brothers sought to make changes to their wills, expressing a strong desire to disinherit their nephew and nieces, wanting to leave their estate to their church and local community members that were supporting them in their advanced age. In 2018, their health began to decline, and the attorney made the final changes to their wills. The will for the first brother was completed in January 2018, leaving everything to the surviving brother, and the alternative residuary was to be split equally between two neighbors, their church, and then their sister-in-law, which is one of the plaintiffs. The other brother was not competent to execute the will and continued to have cognitive decline. This brother executed his will on April 7, 2018, after a home health aide determined that he was in a lucid state and had testamentary capacity. A few days letter, that brother was confirmed to be incompetent and needed a legal guardian appointed. Both brothers died in 2018, and the niece filed two caveats, challenging both wills among other probate actions.
In 2020, the plaintiffs sued the attorney for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and other claims, arguing that the attorney owed them a duty of care because they were beneficiaries to the brothers' estate.
After years of motion practice and appeals, the Supreme Court of New Jersey expressly adopted the provisions of Section 51 of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers to determine when a lawyer owes a duty of care to a non-client. In doing so, the court determined that the standard hinges upon reliance and clear, convincing evidence of intention.
