## Facts

- Amanda Rayann Karan, a minor, became the beneficiary of $50,000 in life-insurance proceeds after her father’s death.
- Amanda’s mother retained attorney James F. Topliff to establish a guardianship of Amanda’s estate so the mother could manage the proceeds.
- The guardianship order did not require the guardian to post a bond and did not require the funds to be deposited in a blocked account; it instead directed the mother to establish and manage an account for Amanda’s benefit.
- The mother later breached her fiduciary duty and depleted the estate to about $15,969.87.
- The court removed the mother and appointed Donna Janssen as successor guardian of the estate; the successor guardian obtained judgments against the mother but could not collect.
- The successor guardian sued Topliff and his law firm for legal malpractice on Amanda’s behalf, alleging the attorney owed Amanda (a non-client) a duty to ensure statutory protections (bond or blocked account) were implemented.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the attorney-defendants, ruling no duty was owed to the non-client child.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney retained by a parent to establish a guardianship of a minor’s estate owes a duty of care to the non-client minor, permitting the minor (through a guardian) to sue for malpractice.
2. Whether the six-factor test for non-client duty supports liability where the alleged negligence is failure to secure statutory safeguards such as a bond or blocked account.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for the attorney-defendants and remanded for trial.
- Applying the Trask six-factor analysis, the court held the attorney owed a duty of care to the non-client minor.
- The court concluded the minor was the direct, intended beneficiary of the guardianship-creation services, not merely an incidental beneficiary.
- The court found harm to the minor was foreseeable if statutory safeguards were not put in place and that the injury was directly connected to the alleged failure to secure those safeguards.
- The court determined recognizing a duty furthered protection of minors and did not impose an undue burden on the legal profession because it required compliance with clear statutory requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Under Washington law, whether an attorney owes a duty to a non-client is determined by a multi-factor test considering: intended benefit to the plaintiff, foreseeability of harm, certainty of injury, closeness of connection, policy of preventing harm, and burden on the profession.
- A non-client may have standing to sue an attorney for malpractice when the legal representation is intended primarily to benefit the non-client and the remaining factors support imposing a duty.
- In creating a minor’s guardianship of an estate, the minor is typically the primary intended beneficiary of statutory protections designed to prevent misuse of the minor’s property.
- Where alleged negligence concerns failure to obtain statutory protections (such as a bond or a court-controlled blocked account), resulting loss to the minor can be a foreseeable and closely connected injury supporting a duty to the minor.

## Conclusion

The court held that an attorney hired to establish a guardianship for a minor’s estate can owe a malpractice duty to the non-client child when the child is the intended beneficiary of the representation and the Trask factors support imposing that duty; summary judgment for the attorney-defendants was reversed and the case was remanded.


In re Guardianship of Karan, 38 P.3d 396 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002)