Sherertz v. Brownstein, Rask, Sweeney, Kerr, Grim, Desylvia, & Hay, LLP

Under Hale v. Groce, 304 Or 281, an attorney is liable for economic losses to a third party beneficiary only where the attorney made “an actual promise to [a] client * * * to achieve a particular objective that will benefit [the] specified third party.”

Sherertz appealed the dismissal of her legal malpractice claims against Brownstein, Rask, Sweeney, Kerr, Grimm, Desylvia & Hay, LLP [law firm]. Sherertz assigned error to the directed verdict for the law firm. Sherertz argued that the evidence provided was sufficient to support a finding in Sheretz’s favor. In response, the law firm renewed their trial court arguments that there was insufficient evidence of damages or, alternatively, that they owed no duty that would give rise to liability. Under Hale v. Groce, 304 Or 281, an attorney is liable for economic losses to a third party beneficiary only where the attorney made “an actual promise to [a] client * * * to achieve a particular objective that will benefit [the] specified third party.” The Court found that the law firm made a promise to the decedent to benefit all four of his children, not one specific child and that that promise never changed. Because there was no promise to benefit the specific child, the law firm owed no duty to the specific child. The Court found that the negligence claim on behalf of a trust fails for the same reason and that the estate failed to prove any loss. Affirmed.