In Despina Alice Christakos v. Anthony A. Boyadjis, Esq. (A-42-24/090214) (Decided January 20, 2026), the Supreme Court of New Jersey adopted the standard set forth in Section 51 of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers for determining when an attorney owes a duty of care to a non-client. The Court further found that the defendant attorney did not owe non-client plaintiff Helen Christakos a duty of care under either Section 51(2) or Section 51(3).
Facts of Christakos v. Boyadjis, Esq.
Plaintiff Helen Christakos and her mother, plaintiff Despina (Alice) Christakos, filed suit alleging that attorney Anthony Boyadjis committed legal malpractice in preparing the 2018 wills of Peter and Nick Christakos, brothers of Alice’s late husband, James. In 2003, Peter and Nick executed mirror-image wills providing that upon one brother’s death, his estate would go to the other brother.
If the other brother had died, the estate was to be divided equally among two of Peter and Nick’s then-living brothers, Constantine and James, per stirpes. In July 2017, Helen, who is an attorney, emailed Boyadjis, an acquaintance, asking him to contact Peter and Nick because Peter had told her they were “looking to get their wills/trusts in order.” Helen did not know she was an heir under the 2003 will and had no further contact with Boyadjis until Peter died.
Boyadjis admits that he erroneously told Peter that, under the 2003 will, if one brother pre-deceased the other, the children of all their eight siblings would inherit, not just Helen and the daughter of Constantine. Peter then asked Boyadjis to prepare a new will for him and Nick, leaving everything to each other, but Peter was uncertain about the alternate residuary bequest. Peter later advised Boyadjis that he may want to leave some of his estate to his neighbor, a church, Alice, and Helen.
Boyadjis received an urgent call from Peter after both he and Nick were admitted to the hospital in January 2018. According to Boyadjis, Peter instructed him to prepare the wills so that the alternate residuary bequest would be split equally between the neighbor, the church, and Alice. Boyadjis brought the wills to the hospital, and Peter executed his will.
Boyadjis testified that Nick did not have testamentary capacity at that time but was competent to sign his will in April 2018. In what Boyadjis admits was a second error, both Nick’s and Peter’s 2018 wills conveyed only their personal property to the surviving brother, not the entire estate.
Peter died in April 2018 and Nick in October 2018. Their 2018 wills were probated over a challenge by Helen. Ultimately, the church and the neighbor each agreed to accept $100,000. The remainder of the estates was awarded to Alice.
Helen and Alice filed a malpractice action alleging that Boyadjis breached the duty of care he owed them as beneficiaries under Peter’s and Nick’s wills, including by: misinterpreting the brothers’ 2003 wills, causing Peter to request a new will; incorrectly leaving Peter’s estate to Alice, the neighbors, and the Church, rather than to Nick; and omitting Helen as a beneficiary from the 2018 wills.
Boyadjis sought summary judgment, claiming in part that he owed no duty of care to plaintiffs. The trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed in part and reversed in part. It agreed that Boyadjis owed Alice a duty of care but disagreed that he owed a duty to Helen.
NJ Supreme Court’s Decision in Christakos v. Boyadjis, Esq.
The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. “We adopt the standard set forth in Section 51 of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers,” Justice Wainer Apter wrote. “Because plaintiff Helen Christakos cannot meet that standard, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division.”
In reaching its decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court acknowledged that it had not previously adopted a standard for when an attorney owes a duty of care to a non-client such that the non-client can bring an action for legal malpractice. It went on to formally adopt the standard set forth in Section 51 of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers that it had relied on in prior cases.
As Justice Wainer-Apter explained, under subsection (2) of Section 51, a lawyer owes a duty of care to a non-client when “(a) the lawyer or (with the lawyer’s acquiescence) the lawyer’s client invites the nonclient to rely on the lawyer’s opinion or provision of other legal services, and the nonclient so relies; and (b) the nonclient is not, under applicable tort law, too remote from the lawyer to be entitled to protection.”
Applying this standard, the New Jersey Supreme Court previously found that “[i]f the attorney’s actions are intended to induce a specific non-client’s reasonable reliance . . . then there is a relationship between the attorney and the third party” to support a duty.
The New Jersey Supreme Court next addressed subsection (3) of Section 51, under which a lawyer owes a duty of care to a non-client when: “(a) the lawyer knows that a client intends as one of the primary objectives of the representation that the lawyer’s services benefit the nonclient; (b) such duty would not significantly impair the lawyer’s performance of obligations to the client; and (c) the absence of such a duty would make enforcement of those obligations to the client unlikely.”
As Justice Wainer-Apter noted, Comment f. to Section 51 addresses situations in which a non-client seeks to enforce a lawyer’s duties to a client, which are applicable to the case. In Illustration 3, if a client’s intent to benefit a non-client does not appear on the face of a will, the non-client can establish a duty from the lawyer to the non-client only by producing clear and convincing evidence that the client communicated to the lawyer the client’s intent that the non-client be the beneficiary of the will. In Illustration 4, a lawyer is not subject to liability to an heir who alleges the lawyer negligently assisted a client to execute a will despite the client’s incompetence because recognizing such a duty of care “would impair performance of lawyers’ duty to assist clients even when the clients’ competence might later be challenged.”
The New Jersey Supreme Court ultimately concluded that Boyadjis did not owe Helen a duty of care under either Section 51(2) or Section 51(3). In support, it cited that there was no genuine dispute about Helen’s lack of reliance on Boyadjis’s legal opinion, an essential element under 51(2). Neither Boyadjis nor Peter nor Nick ever invited Helen to rely on any opinion or statement by Boyadjis, and the evidence confirms that Helen did not so rely.
The Court also found there was also no duty of care under Section 51(3)(a) because no reasonable jury could find clear and convincing evidence that Boyadjis knew that Peter and Nick intended their 2018 wills to benefit Helen.
As to Helen’s contention that Nick’s 2018 will should never have been executed for lack of testamentary capacity, the Court noted that the Restatement explicitly rejects this theory as grounds for a duty in a legal malpractice case. “[R]ecognizing a duty to a purported heir could conflict with an attorney’s vigorous representation of their actual client, and the Court declines to recognize such a duty here,” Justice Wainer-Apter wrote.
