Can the intended beneficiaries of a will sue the attorney who prepared the will?

The issue in Lucas v. Hamm, supra, 56 Cal.2d 583, was whether the intended beneficiaries of a will could sue the attorney who had contracted with the testator to prepare the will, when, after the testator's death, the beneficiaries had not obtained their intended inheritance because of the attorney's alleged failure to fulfill his contractual obligation to properly prepare the will. In holding that the intended beneficiaries of the will could sue the attorney for breach of contract under a proper interpretation of California's third party beneficiary doctrine (and overruling an earlier decision that had reached a contrary result), the court stated: "Since, in a situation like those presented here . . . , the main purpose of the testator in making his agreement with the attorney is to benefit the persons named in his will and this intent can be effectuated, in the event of a breach by the attorney, only by giving the beneficiaries a right of action, we should recognize, as a matter of policy, that they are entitled to recover as third-party beneficiaries." (56 Cal.2d at p. 590, italics added.) Because, after the testator's death, the testator was no longer available to bring a breach of contract action against the attorney, it was consistent with the objectives of the contract and the

Page 22