The Dying Client, the Disinherited Son, and the Notary
Ruth, age 88, is hospitalized with terminal cancer and is receiving morphine. She tells her attorney, Ms. Okafor, that she wants to change her will to leave everything to her granddaughter Sofia and to disinherit her son Ben, who has been pressuring her for money. Ms. Okafor prepares a new will and brings it to the hospital. Ruth is drowsy but oriented to person, place, and time; she signs with a shaky signature. Ben arrives during the signing and argues with Ruth. Ms. Okafor notarizes the will and has one nurse witness it. Two weeks later, Ruth dies. Ben contests the will, alleging lack of capacity, undue influence, and improper execution. Sofia also discovers that Ms. Okafor is Sofia's aunt.
1. Evaluate Ben's lack of capacity and undue influence claims. What is the burden of proof and who bears it?
Read the worked answer
Capacity: California requires the testator to understand (1) the nature of the act (making a will), (2) the nature and extent of her property, (3) the persons who are the natural objects of her bounty, and (4) the nature of the testamentary act. Ruth was oriented to person, place, and time and expressed a coherent plan. Drowsiness from morphine does not automatically defeat capacity; the question is whether she understood the will's effect at the moment of signing. The shaky signature is weak evidence. Ben bears the burden of proving lack of capacity by a preponderance (or clear and convincing if fraud/undue influence is alleged).
Undue influence: Ben must show that Ruth's will was overborne by pressure that destroyed her free will. California recognizes presumptions of undue influence when (a) a confidential relationship exists, (b) the beneficiary actively participated in procuring the will, and (c) the result is unnatural. Here, Sofia is the beneficiary, not Ms. Okafor, and there is no evidence Sofia procured the will. Ben's pressure on Ruth actually cuts against him - it explains why Ruth wanted to disinherit him. Ben's claim is weak.
Key point: The attorney's conflict (Ms. Okafor is Sofia's aunt) is a separate issue that may support a claim of undue influence by the drafter, even absent Sofia's participation.
2. Was the will properly executed? Analyze the witnessing and notarization under California law.
Read the worked answer
California allows a will to be made valid by either (1) the standard attested-will formalities (signed by the testator and two witnesses who sign in the testator's presence), or (2) a holographic will (material provisions in the testator's handwriting, signed, no witnesses needed). This will is typed, so it needs two witnesses.
Here, only one nurse witnessed the will. The notarization does not substitute for witnesses in California - a notarized typed will still requires two witnesses. Therefore, the will is likely invalid as a formally executed attested will.
Possible savings:
- If Ruth's signature and the material terms were in her handwriting, it could qualify as a holographic will - but the facts say Ms. Okafor prepared it, so this is unlikely.
- Harmless error doctrine: California has a substantial compliance / harmless error provision (Prob. Code § 6110(c)(2)) that can validate a will if the proponent proves by clear and convincing evidence that the testator intended the document to be her will. The notarization, the nurse's witness, and Ruth's stated intent may support this, but it is not guaranteed.
Exam point: Notarization is not a substitute for witnesses in California. The safer practice is two disinterested witnesses plus a self-proving affidavit.
3. What ethical issues does Ms. Okafor face as Sofia's aunt, and what should she have done?
Read the worked answer
Ms. Okafor faces a conflict of interest under the California Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.7). Her personal interest (her niece is the sole beneficiary) creates a significant risk that her representation of Ruth will be materially limited. Even if she believes she can be objective, the appearance of impropriety and the risk of undue influence are substantial.
Specific problems:
- Drafting for a family member's benefit while representing the client is a classic conflict. The attorney should have disclosed the relationship in writing and obtained Ruth's informed written consent, or better, declined the representation and referred Ruth to independent counsel.
- Undue influence exposure: A will drafted by an attorney who is related to the sole beneficiary is highly vulnerable to challenge. The attorney's involvement may shift the burden to Sofia to prove the will was not the product of undue influence.
- Notarizing the will while having a conflict compounds the problem.
What she should have done: (1) Disclose the relationship and obtain written informed consent, or withdraw; (2) ensure independent counsel reviewed the will; (3) use two disinterested witnesses; (4) document Ruth's capacity and voluntariness carefully; (5) avoid notarizing a will benefiting her own family. The exam point: the drafter's conflict is a red flag that can invalidate an otherwise valid will.