Australia: Informal wills: do solicitors owe a duty to intended beneficiaries?

In brief - Duty of care should be exercised but terms of the retainer are key

A recent NSW Court of Appeal judgment in Howe v Fischer has provided some clarity on whether solicitors failing to advise clients on the "informal will" provision of the Succession Act are in breach of their retainer or their duty to an intended beneficiary.

Disadvantaged beneficiary sues solicitor for professional negligence

In the first case, Fischer v Howe [2013] NSWSC 462, a solicitor was sued by a beneficiary who would have taken a greater share of his mother's estate if a last will and testament that the solicitor was instructed by his mother to prepare, had been prepared and executed prior to her death.

The primary issue before the court was whether the solicitor owed a duty - to the intended beneficiary - to advise the testatrix client of the possibility of creating an informal will, then procuring such a document from her.

Judge finds in favour of beneficiary but decision is appealed successfully

At first instance, Adamson J found that the solicitor did owe such a duty and that he was in breach of it, resulting in a damages award to the beneficiary of over $950,000 plus costs.

Lawcover successfully appealed the first instance decision in the NSW Court of Appeal, in Howe v Fischer [2014] NSWCA 286. The damages finding was overturned and the claimant, the disadvantaged beneficiary, was ordered to pay Lawcover's costs of the trial and appeal.

No doubt on client's testamentary capacity nor health

The solicitor, Mr Howe, was approached by his GP, Dr Zwi - who was also the GP to Ms Fischer (a widow in her 90s) - about drafting a new will for Ms Fischer. Arrangements were made and the solicitor met with Ms Fischer in late March 2010.

Although Ms Fischer was elderly and frail and had a full time carer, there was nothing to the solicitor's observation, nor anything that had been said by the GP, to indicate impending death or loss of testamentary capacity.

Testatrix gives instructions for a new will

Mr Howe spent approximately 90 minutes obtaining instructions for a new will. The primary issues from the solicitor's perspective were that Ms Fischer had lost confidence in her accountant, who was one of her executors under the existing will, and that she wanted to increase the share that her son would take as beneficiary from 25% to 50%.

She also explained that she did not want to leave anything to her daughter. The solicitor took notes of his instructions and provided initial advice about a possible Family Provision Act claim.

At no stage during the conference did Ms Fischer appear to the solicitor to be suffering from ill health. She did not complain about the length of the conference, nor did she disclose any medical problems.

Draft will was to be presented to client after Easter break

By the conclusion of the conference, the solicitor and client arranged to meet again in approximately two weeks' time, when the solicitor would return with a draft will. In the interim, the solicitor would be away over the Easter break.

That suited Ms Fischer because she indicated that she wanted her son, who was returning from overseas, to be present for the later meeting.

Unbeknown to the solicitor, subsequent to the initial conference, Ms Fischer informed her son that she wanted not only him, but also her GP and a barrister friend to be present when Mr Howe returned with the draft will.

Previous will goes to probate after client dies before finalising new will

Regrettably, Ms Fischer died before the end of the Easter break and before the solicitor had returned with the draft will. Ms Fischer's 2009 will went through to probate and the son's position as beneficiary remained at 25%, rather than moving up to 50% as was contemplated in Ms Fischer's discussions with Mr Howe.

Client's son sues for professional negligence

The son then brought professional negligence proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW against the solicitor. He alleged that the solicitor owed a duty to him (as a non-client intended beneficiary) to draw up a will in manuscript during the conference that the solicitor had with his client Ms Fischer, and to have such a document executed by her, so that those testamentary wishes could be recorded as an "informal will" for the purpose of section 8 of the Succession Act 2006, and admitted to probate.

Duty of care on carrying out testamentary intentions

After referring to appellate authorities including Hill v Van Erp [1997] HCA 9, White v Jones [1995] UKHL 5, Summerville v Walsh [1998] NSWCA 222 and Maestrale v Aspite [2012] NSWSC 1420, Adamson J said at [88] that those "...authorities illustrate that the duty of care owed by a solicitor to intended beneficiaries extends to the means by which a solicitor can ensure that a testator's wishes are carried out."

Her Honour found there were two principal mechanisms whereby a solicitor can ensure that a client's testamentary intentions were legally effective - first, by drawing up a formal will and ensuring that it is executed; and secondly, by drawing up an informal will which would take effect by reason of section 8 of the Succession Act.

Her Honour found that the solicitor's retainer by Ms Fischer was a retainer "... to give legal effect to the deceased's testamentary intentions, and not merely... to prepare a formal will and arrange for its execution" (at [90]). She then said that, in those circumstances, the duty to the intended beneficiary required the solicitor to "...procure an informal will..." (at [91]) at the time of the conference when the initial instructions were taken.

Court finds client had settled dispositive intention

There were a number of matters which Her Honour made particular reference to in reaching the conclusion that she did, including:

  • Ms Fischer had a settled dispositive intention.
  • The settled nature of her intentions was indicated by Ms Fischer's comments to her son - following the conference - that she wanted the son, her GP and the barrister friend to be present at the time when the solicitor returned with the draft will.
  • The solicitor knew that Ms Fischer was at least in her 90s, had difficulties with mobility and required a carer, and was at greater risk of having a fall or sustaining a serious injury or stroke.
  • There was no practical impediment to the solicitor drawing up an informal will when he was present at the time of the initial conference.

Court recognises client's risk of losing testamentary capacity

The court held that the solicitor was negligent in failing to procure an informal will at the time of the conference; that by reason of Ms Fischer's age, lack of mobility and need for care she was susceptible to "...a not insignificant risk of losing her testamentary capacity in the period of about a fortnight between the initial conference and the proposed [meeting when a draft will would be discussed]".

Her Honour thought there was " reason for [Ms Fischer], or her intended beneficiaries (i.e. including her son, the plaintiff) to be subjected to that risk in light of her settled testamentary intentions..." (at [97]).

In finding in favour of the plaintiff, Adamson J awarded the difference between what the plaintiff/beneficiary took under the pre-existing will (25% of the residuary), compared to the 50% that he would have received if an informal will had been procured.

Potential repercussions for solicitors who draft wills

If the first instance judgment had remained unchallenged, in my view there were a number of material issues for solicitors engaged in will drafting:

  • The necessity to bear in mind the interests of someone who is not the client - namely the intended beneficiary - more than the interests of the actual client, the testator/testatrix.
  • The obligation to proffer advice on the possibility of creating an informal will where such advice was not sought.
  • The obligation to encourage a course that was not a course agreed to with the client, merely because it suited the interests of a non-client beneficiary (i.e. advocating an informal will procedure when the client instead wanted to have a meeting once a proper draft will was prepared and for such a meeting to include family members and others).
  • The need to "procure" an informal will from a testator/testatrix client when that may be something that the client does not seek or desire.
  • The need to exercise a medical judgment (for which he/she is untrained) as to whether a client is close to death or at imminent risk of losing testamentary capacity when there are no indications that that is the case, nor any comment from the client or others as to any need for urgency.

Erroneous judgment overturned by Court of Appeal

In Howe v Fischer, the Court of Appeal found that the primary judge's conclusion, that the solicitor's retainer by Ms Fischer was not merely to prepare a formal will and arrange for its subsequent execution but "... to give legal effect to [her] testamentary intentions ..." (at [73]), was erroneous.

The court also set aside the primary judge's finding that performance of the solicitor's retainer entailed "procuring immediate execution of an informal will".

Ms Fischer had made a number of formal wills on at least nine occasions between 1982 and 2009. In each case the will was typed in a solicitor's office and followed a familiar process, i.e. the solicitor on each of the earlier occasions took instructions, drew the will at some later point in time, then again met with the client to check the will, ensured that it met Ms Fischer's requirements, then - if so - that it was executed.

Express terms of the retainer not breached by solicitor

It was clear from the evidence that Ms Fischer intended the same course to be followed for the will to be prepared by Mr Howe. She understood and accepted that he would return with a draft at a future point in time and wanted three people present when he did return for a further conference.

That intention by Ms Fischer, and the agreement for the return in two weeks' time, formed express terms of the retainer. The evidence did not suggest an obligation to give effect there and then to testamentary intentions, nor to procure - at the time of the initial conference - immediate execution of an informal will.

Given that there was no failure on the solicitor's part to perform his solicitor/client retainer, there was no breach of the duty that he owed to the beneficiary/son.

Solicitor's duty to take reasonable precautions

However, the court found that in circumstances where - to a solicitor's knowledge - there is some factor at work that as a matter of reasonable foresight might cause the legal result sought by the client (i.e. the testator or testatrix) to be frustrated, it was part of a solicitor's duty to take such reasonable precautions - if any - as were available to avert that consequence.

In those circumstances, the duty of a solicitor to the intended beneficiary arising from the retainer by the testator/testatrix is a duty:

... to take reasonable steps to achieve, by the exercise of care and skill of the ordinarily skilled solicitor, two things: firstly, fulfilment of the client's objective of making a formal will according to the agreed timeframe and, second, the avoidance of any reasonably foreseeable frustration of that objective [70].

Client retainer and duty of care to beneficiary

The court did find that the fact that the solicitor had been retained by Ms Fischer to prepare a will under which the plaintiff was to be a substantial beneficiary resulted in a duty of care to the plaintiff, but that the duty to the beneficiary took its content from the retainer by the testatrix. So, any breach of the retainer by failing to take reasonable care to perform and fulfil it will also be a breach of the solicitor's duty to the intended beneficiary.

The court cited Brennan (at 171) in Hill v Van Erp that: "... the duty of care owed by the solicitor to the intended but disappointed beneficiary is in the performance of the work in which he owes a corresponding duty - albeit contractually - to the testator" (at [71]). Tobias AJA (in Vagg v McPhee) was also quoted: "...the solicitor's duty to the disappointed beneficiary is circumscribed by 'the terms of the retainer and the instructions of the client, to whom the primary duty is owed'" (at [72]).

The Court of Appeal went on to find that even if the primary judge's formulation of the retainer was accepted (which it wasn't), the most that could have been required of the solicitor was the exercise of reasonable care in advising Ms Fischer that it was possible for her to sign, virtually immediately, a statement of testamentary intentions in the expectation that, if she died or lost testamentary capacity within the next two-week period, the Supreme Court might make an order under section 8 of the Succession Act.

The appeal judges refuted the suggestion that there could be any duty on a solicitor to "procure" Ms Fischer to do anything in response to that advice.

Appeal judges find there was no breach of retainer

However, the duty to call attention to the possibility of making an informal will would only arise if the solicitor was aware that some factor was at work that, as a matter of reasonable foresight, might cause Ms Fischer's objective of making effective testamentary dispositions by means of a formal will two weeks later to be frustrated.

The appeal judges found that there was no basis on which the solicitor could have been held to be so aware and accordingly, there was no breach of retainer.

Lawyers should focus on terms of retainer, exercise care and consider section 8 obligation

It is a favourable and, I think, commonsense approach. The solicitor is required - correctly - to focus on the terms of his or her retainer with the testator or testatrix client. While the obligation to understand and apply section 8 of the Succession Act remains, it is not something that needs to be called into play on each occasion.

Rather, the solicitor needs to exercise the usual standard of care and foresight in determining whether there is any factor that might frustrate the client's objective of making effective testamentary dispositions by means of a formal will in the timeframe agreed between solicitor and client. A solicitor might consider:

  • Is there something to be aware of that might suggest imminent death or loss of testamentary capacity or other need for urgency?
  • Is the client under intensive medical care in hospital?
  • Is the client about to embark upon an overseas journey to some perilous location? (e.g. a soldier urgently called to a war zone)
  • Is there some indication (e.g. via medical evidence) that suggests a real risk of imminent loss of testamentary capacity?

Unless factors such as these exist, my interpretation of the Court of Appeal's judgment is that it is not a breach of a solicitor's retainer, nor a corresponding breach of a solicitor's duty to an intended beneficiary, to fail to bring to the testator/testatrix client a discussion about informal wills and section 8 of the Succession Act on each will-drafting exercise.

Peter Moran
Trusts and estates
CBP Lawyers

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.