Key Takeaway: Last week’s New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Christakos v. Boyadjis provides meaningful guidance for legal malpractice practitioners by clarifying and narrowing the circumstances in which attorneys may owe duties of care to non‑clients. Although the underlying dispute involved an estate planning matter, the Court’s formal adoption of Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers Sections 51(2) and 51(3) establishes a standardized, two‑path framework that will impact legal malpractice exposure across multiple practice areas, including insurance coverage, corporate, real estate, and finance.
On January 20, 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified the scope of an attorney’s duty of care to non‑clients in legal malpractice actions. In Despina Alice Christakos v. Anthony A. Boyadjis, Esq., the Court adopted Sections 51(2) and 51(3) of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, establishing a narrow, two‑path standard under which a lawyer may owe a duty to a non‑client.
Background
The case involved legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims brought by Despina (Alice) Christakos and her daughter, Helen Christakos, who alleged that attorney Anthony Boyadjis negligently prepared revised wills for two brothers, family members of the plaintiffs, and that his conduct reduced their anticipated inheritance.
Plaintiffs asserted that Boyadjis’ drafting work in 2018, as well as his handling of an issue pertaining to one brother’s testamentary capacity, negatively impacted them as potential beneficiaries. Helen, who was a beneficiary of the brothers’ prior wills, was omitted in the revised wills. Alice remained a beneficiary of the revised wills, which included a neighbor and local church as beneficiaries.
The trial court found that Boyadjis owed a duty of care to both plaintiffs because they were identifiable beneficiaries whose interests could be directly affected by the attorney’s work. The Appellate Division narrowed that ruling, holding that while Alice could proceed, the record did not support extending a duty of care to Helen, who was not shown to be an intended beneficiary under the revised wills. Only the issue of Helen’s standing proceeded to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Holding
In reviewing the case, the Court emphasized that New Jersey has long approached attorney liability to non‑clients with caution and has never adopted a broad standard for imposing such duties. Recognizing the lack of a formally articulated test in prior decisions, the Court formally adopted Sections 51(2) and 51(3) of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, which define two narrow circumstances under which a duty may arise:
- Invitation and reliance: where the attorney or client, with the lawyer’s acquiescence, invites a non‑client to rely on the attorney’s work and the non‑client actually does so; and
- Intent to benefit a non‑client: where the attorney knows the client’s primary objective is to confer a benefit on the non‑client and recognizing such a duty would not conflict with the attorney’s obligations to the client.
Applying these principles, the Court concluded that Helen could not demonstrate that Boyadjis or his clients ever invited her reliance, nor could she establish that the 2018 estate documents were intended to benefit her. The Court further rejected Helen’s theory that Boyadjis should be liable for proceeding with a will execution despite alleged concerns about testamentary capacity. According to the Court, imposing such a duty would undermine the attorney’s obligation to provide faithful, conflict‑free representation to the clients themselves and could discourage lawyers from assisting elderly or infirm clients out of fear of litigation brought by disappointed relatives.
Summary – Impact on Insurers
The Christakos decision creates a more predictable and defense friendly landscape for legal malpractice insurers. By formalizing a narrow, two‑path duty standard and rejecting broader balancing tests, the Court has reduced the risk of expansive non‑client claims, strengthened available defenses, and provided a clear basis for underwriting and risk assessment strategies. This opinion is a positive development for carriers seeking clarity, containment of risk, and consistency in evaluating potential attorney liability to third parties.
Article by Paul Carbon and Shareefah Taylor.
