Legal Question in Wills and Trusts in California
legal opinion needed
I along with my siblings are the heirs to my uncles estate. We were given the bulk of the estate at one point and the attorney said he needed to keep some money back to make sure all the finances were settled. That was fine and we understand that. The opinion I need is what was done next. The attorney wrote to each of us heirs and asked us if we would donate $1500 or so to the lady that was the administrator of the will so she could buy herself a car because her car was getting old and she has family in Oregon to visit. Mind you, she received approximately $40,000 as administrator. He SAID she had no idea he was asking for this money. Is this a legal,or ethical, thing for an attorney do? I would appreciate input on this matter. Thank you.
3 Answers from Attorneys
Re: legal opinion needed
Of course I'd have to review all the facts to provide a legitimate response, but the attorney typically represents the Administrator in probate administration. The inquiry probably doesn't violate any ethical rules but it is probably unprofessional under the circumstances, especially when the closing of the estate has been delayed. It basically creates doubt on the part of the beneficiaries. Simply say "no", request a schedule for the winding up of the probate as well as an accounting of all expenses to date.
Re: legal opinion needed
I concur with co-counsel. There is nothing "illegal" about the attorney asking, but it certainly leaves a "bad taste" in the mouth.
Get your accounting and the schedule of winding up as Atty. Busch suggested.
If you would like to learn more about Probate and the Probate process, please feel free to visit our firm's site at www.No-Probate.com.
Scott Linden
Re: legal opinion needed
Third times' a charm - I also concur. I do not think this is malpractice per se but it veers dangerously close to a conflict of interest in my opinion.
The attorney's job is to carry out the intention of the person who has died. Your uncle has stated what he wants to have happen - and there is no rational basis for the attorney to go making additionnal things occur as well.
The conflict I see is in attempting to circumvent the intent of the testator by changing the terms of the bequests to add additional relief to the administrator.