Carey v. Hartz

In a legal malpractice case involving revisions made to an estate plan, the appellate court considered whether an attorney has a duty to evaluate the mental capacity of their client and, if so, whether the plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendants were aware of their client’s mental disability at the time they provided legal services. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss, explaining that while there is no general duty for an attorney to evaluate a client’s competence, the facts alleged in the complaint support a claim that defendants were on notice of their client’s disability at the time they rendered services and failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that she was competent to modify her estate plan. (MARTIN and D.B. WALKER, concurring)