Legal Question in Wills and Trusts in California

Your question is too vague to answer for the most part. The key ambiguity is you say the couple is "represented" by the same attorney, but you don't say when or for what purposes. Conflict of interest and client loyalty in former representations is a somewhat complex area of the law. You also say the attorney "filed" the new deed. Without more, that sounds like a ministerial act that really isn't part of practicing law anyway. A title company, or the husband himself could have gone down to the county recorder and recorded the deed. Turning to the specific questions: 1. First, there is no such thing as "the Code of Ethics." Second, no attorney would be obligated in any case to obtain the wife's approval or waiver, since she has no right to disapprove or refuse to waive anything regarding her husband's decision to sever the joint tenancy. Third, as I said above, there is no way to determine whether the attorney violated any ethical rule or law. 2. See "Third" in answer to question #1. 3. Again you do not provide sufficent facts, but if the entire basis for the action would be that the wife did not give her consent or waiver, it was done behind her back, and the attorney acted in violation of some ethical rules, the answer would be the children. Nothing described in the question would give rise to a valid claim to void the transfer. Lastly, I would add that the estate of the husband may have a cause of action for malpractice against the attorney for allowing the husband to make such a tax-disfavored move. By granting the property to the children while alive, they lost the stepped-up basis for capital gains, and he may have subjected the transaction to other tax liability.

1. I doubt he violated any ethical rules, because as Mr. McCormic points out, he could have done it himself, and there is no way to prevent one tenant from severing a joint tenancy. A right of survivorship is not the same as other rights, and is just an expectancy, which can be terminated by the other joint tenant, without your consent.

2. I highly doubt it for the reasons listed in "1."

3. Probably neither.

As Mr. McCormick points out, it is not clear on what basis the wife had to declare that the attorney was also her attorney, or what the nature of the representation was for the wife.

note, though, that even if the joint tenancy was validly severed (requires notice to the other jt. tenant) the husband could only transfer his 1/2 share to his children.