[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

apply. A lawyer cannot claim comparative fault as a defense in a case such as Sickler or
Greycas where the clients’ or third party beneficiary’s failure to understand has been caused
by the clients’ reasonable reliance on the lawyer’s negligent or nonexistent explanation. 34
Nonclient Duties
It seems axiomatic that lawyers should be accountable only to their clients. The most
obvious example is the often-repeated statement that lawyers owe no duties to adverse
parties. 35 Courts generally recognize duties to nonclients only when doing so will foster the
client’s intent and not harm the professional-client relationship. Clients should receive
frank advice untainted by lawyer concerns about liability to others. 36 But at the same time,
Sickler, and the next two cases, Greycas and Cruze, illustrate that lawyers cannot escape
some generally applicable law which creates responsibility to nonclients. The Restatement
catalogues these often overlooked common law and statutory obligations that impose duties
to nonclients.
Intentional Torts The easiest cases involve intentional torts. Most courts find duties to
nonclients when the tort is not part of proper client representation, such as battery,
conversion, and fraud. 37
Generally Applicable Statutes Cruze illustrates how lawyers can become accountable to
third parties for violating generally applicable state statutes, such as those prohibiting elder
abuse, regulating securities, and proscribing racketeering. Federal securities, antitrust, and
civil rights laws also apply to lawyers. 38
Invitation to Rely Nonclients who do not wish to hire a lawyer may nevertheless be invited
by a lawyer or the lawyer’s client to reasonably rely on the lawyer’s services. 39 As in Sickler
and Greycas, the client typically benefits from this invitation, often in the circumstance of
providing a third party with an opinion. 40
Third-Party Beneficiaries Sickler and Greycas also demonstrate that most courts extend the
client-lawyer relationship to third-party beneficiaries, those nonclients the client intends to
benefit in documents created by the lawyer for the client. 41 For lawyers, the earliest cases
involved situations in which a client sought the lawyer’s help to make a third party the
beneficiary of a will or trust. Here, courts found that breach of a duty of care to the client,
such as negligent drafting of the document, which later caused frustration of the testator’s
intent, created a cause of action by the intended beneficiary against the testator’s or settlor’s
lawyer. 42
On the other hand, where the parties are potential adversaries or incidental rather than
intended beneficiaries, courts have refused to apply the third-party beneficiary doctrine. 43
For example, many courts refuse to impose duties to estate beneficiaries on an executor’s
105