Legal Question in Wills and Trusts in California
Hello...
My question relates to whether it would be a good idea to have one attorney representing two persons or for each to have an attorney of their own. I have a case wherein my father and I found out recently (when my grandfather died) that we had been disinherited years earlier during a time when my grandpa was not likely capable nor would have been inclined to have done such a thing. Basically, my father and I were both affected by this estate change and so there is no way for one of us to win and the other lose. If one of us wins we both win since we both want the same thing-for a judge to invalidate the estate changes that removed us a beneficiaries. Since we both would be arguing the same basic case, I am concerned about the impression having one attorney representing both of us would have with a judge. I don't know why, but I sense that it might be better to have seperate attorneys. Do you agree? Or since we have the same case would it be normal for just one attorney to represent two clients with the same interests? I don't know if a judge would favor one scenario over the other or meybe wouldn't care either way but I would like some opiions from those who know such things.
Thanks...
1 Answer from Attorneys
The same lawyer might represent both of you, but insist that you each sign a conflict waiver. There might be a potential conflict down the road if the judge were to agree with you and reverse the change in the estate plan. Then you and your father might dispute what each of you is entitled to receive. In that case, the attorney who assisted you might have to bow out and not represent either of you. But, for the moment, it sounds like the one-attorney plan is cost effective and makes sense. In practicality, you might find an attorney who should be perfectly capable of making that judgment call.