## Facts

- Grace and Helen Shugart, unmarried sisters, owned a 240-acre farm in Illinois; Cecil and Keith McLane were long-term tenant farmers on the land.
- Attorney Fred G. Russell represented the sisters and, in 1958, arranged for the farm to be held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship.
- In 1975, Grace consulted Russell about leaving her interest in the farm to the McLanes; Russell drafted a will devising Cecil a life estate in Grace’s interest and Keith the remainder.
- Russell did not sever the joint tenancy or advise Grace that severance was necessary for the devise to operate if Grace died before Helen.
- Grace died in 1977; her interest passed to Helen by survivorship, causing the will’s devise to the McLanes to fail.
- After Helen later died, the farm passed to the sisters’ cousins rather than to the McLanes.
- The McLanes sued Russell and his firm for legal malpractice as intended beneficiaries; a jury awarded $325,000, and the trial court applied a partial setoff for a pretrial settlement with another party.

## Issues

1. Whether named will beneficiaries may maintain a legal malpractice action against the drafting attorney despite lack of privity when they were intended third-party beneficiaries of the representation.
2. Whether the plaintiffs proved the attorney’s services had the “primary purpose” of benefiting them, creating a duty of care.
3. Whether the attorney’s failure to address the joint tenancy proximately caused plaintiffs’ loss and supported the damages award.
4. Whether the trial court properly reduced the verdict by one-half of plaintiffs’ pretrial settlement with another party.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court and the trial court.
- The court held plaintiffs proved the primary purpose of the attorney’s estate-planning work was to confer a benefit on them, so they could sue as intended beneficiaries.
- The evidence supported findings of breach, causation, and damages where the attorney failed to ensure Grace’s testamentary plan could operate despite the joint tenancy survivorship feature.
- The court upheld the setoff method used to prevent double recovery.

## Legal Principles

- A non-client may sue an attorney for malpractice when the primary purpose and intent of the attorney-client relationship was to benefit that identifiable third party.
- In estate planning, an attorney must exercise reasonable care to implement the testator’s intent, including addressing property title arrangements (such as joint tenancy with survivorship) that can defeat a testamentary devise.
- Proximate cause is satisfied where the attorney’s failure to take necessary steps (or provide necessary advice) foreseeably results in the intended beneficiaries receiving nothing under the will.
- A verdict may be reduced by an appropriate setoff for related settlements to avoid double recovery.

## Conclusion

The court allowed intended will beneficiaries to recover for legal malpractice where the drafting attorney’s estate-planning work was primarily aimed at benefiting them and the attorney’s failure to address joint tenancy survivorship caused the testamentary gift to fail, while also approving a partial setoff for prior settlement proceeds.


McLane v. Russell, 546 N.E.2d 499 (Ill. 1989)