The defense of legal malpractice claims often hinges on a deceptively simple question: did the attorney breach their duty owed to the client?

The crucial analysis often begins with an evaluation of the nature and scope of the attorney-client relationship. This relationship is the cornerstone of nearly all malpractice claims, as it gives rise to the duty of care that anchors the cause of action. Absent that relationship, courts are generally loath to impose liability. The rationale is straightforward: attorneys owe their professional obligations to their clients, not to the public at large. As a result, claims brought by non-clients face significant hurdles, and the circumstances under which a duty may be recognized are narrowly and deliberately defined. 

No privity, no claim, right? Not really.

As with most areas of law, important exceptions exist. Courts have found that an attorney may owe a duty to a non-client when the non-client’s reliance on the attorney’s representations was reasonably foreseeable. This typically (though not exclusively) arises in transactional settings —such as real estate or estate planning — where an attorney’s work product is shared with third parties. In those cases, the key question becomes whether the attorney consciously invited that reliance. If so, and if the non-client suffers harm as a result, a duty may be found. 

Understanding this boundary is critical. It helps clarify potential exposure in cases involving third-party reliance and informs how attorneys should communicate when their work product may have implications beyond the intended client.

While the default rule is protective, the exceptions serve as a reminder that professional obligations can sometimes extend further than expected.