Simon v. Zipperstein
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The sole consideration presented by this appeal is whether in the absence of fraud, collusion or malice, an attorney may be held liable in a malpractice action by a beneficiary or purported beneficiary of a will where privity is lacking. For the reasons that follow, we answer this question in the negative and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
It is by now well-established in Ohio that an attorney may not be held liable by third parties as a result of having performed services on behalf of a client, in good faith, unless the third party is in privity with the client for whom the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Savings Bank v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Scholler v. SchollerOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- First Municipal Leasing Corp. v. Blankenship, Potts, Airman, Hagin & Stewart, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1983
- St. Mary's Church of Schuyler v. TomekNebraska Supreme Court · 1982
- Chicago Title Insurance v. HoltCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by76 opinions
- Spinner v. NuttMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
- Barcelo v. ElliottTexas Supreme Court · 1996
- Chem-Age Industries, Inc. v. GloverSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
- LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & MerklinOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- Belt v. Oppenheimer, Blend, Harrison & Tate, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2006
71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.