Malpractice – Auric Exception

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District II

Case Name: Mary Jane Pence, et al. v. Joan R. Slate, et al.

Case No.: 2018AP652

Officials: Lundsten, P.J., Blanchard and Fitzpatrick, JJ.

Focus: Malpractice – Auric Exception

Wisconsin has a long-standing rule that an attorney is not liable to a non-client for “acts committed in the exercise of his [or her] duties as an attorney.” See Auric v. Continental Cas. Co., 111 Wis. 2d 507, 512, 331 N.W.2d 325 (1983). There are exceptions to this rule and one of those exceptions, established in Auric, applies in the estate-planning context.

In this case, beneficiaries of a trust seek to hold an attorney liable for his alleged negligence related to the trust, despite the fact that the beneficiaries were never clients of the attorney. They rely on the Auric exception. The attorney, William Slate, moved for summary judgment dismissing the malpractice claim, arguing that the Auric exception does not apply. The circuit court agreed, and dismissed the suit with respect to Attorney Slate. We agree with the circuit court that Attorney Slate was entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.