Legal Question in Wills and Trusts in California

Re: Who wrote the trust????

You can sue the attorney, naming him as a Doe defendant. Then supeona your brother for a deposition and ask him who did the trust. Also you can supoena his bank records that would show who he paid at or around the time the trust was written. Then you can file a Doe Amendment adding the name of the attorney and serving him or her with a complaint.

Re: Who wrote the trust????

I have to concur that Mr. Roth's answer is right on the money. Because the attorney or law firm's name is not on the paperwork, your brother would be the best information as to who prepared the trust. Using the subpoena power of the court and the power of a deposition to get questions answered under oath and then amending the lawsuit to bring in the attorney later would be your best bet.

Thanks again, and feel free to email me directly if you have any other questions, or feel that you need help.

Re: Who wrote the trust????

Both answers you have received are correct. But unless I misunderstand the situation, I think there are easier way s getting the information, but it would be silly to sue.

Look up the lawsuit your brother has filed, either on line with the court's web site or if it needs the case number, go down to the court house. The name of the defendant is in the caption and the pleadings probably mention the city in which the incident [in his office] occurred. It will also list the name and contact information as to your brother's new attorney, who will probably tell you what you want to know, as he will want information from you to go forward with your brother's lawsuit and he wants you to be friendly to his side in any deposition or court testimony, since you will be the most neutral witness, and thus most believable, in the case.

But why are you going to sue? You can not sue for legal malpractice since you were not his client. If he did a bad job in preparing the Trust that helped you overturn it. If he was not part of any criminal scheme, fraud, or other tort, but merely gave poor legal advise you have no cause of action. In what way did he do something that was not the providing of acceptable legal services that caused damage to you [requires both harm to you and a relationship that makes that harm improper; you might feel very upset a to what Stalin did to his fellow Russians, and might even have a relative who was killed by him, but that does not give you the right to sue because there is no duty owed by Stalin to you].

Not only do I not see the basis of any law suit, what is the juries reaction going to be to your claim that because the lawyer screwed up your brother's ability to steal the property from you so that you benefited from his errors, that you should be given more money? They will laugh.

If you see any fault in my reasoning, e-mail me and I will review what seems like the plot for a B grade movie.