<div dir="ltr"><div>I'd second Doug's alternatives. Dealing with contentious heirs can justify a final hearing to close the estate and discharge the PR. However, I would be wary of the extent of the work expended on releases and who paid it.</div><div><br></div>I've been in courtroom when a commissioner ordered fees disgorged from the PR and the PR's attorney for work associated with trying to get settlement agreements and waivers from heirs and beneficiaries releasing the PR from liability, reasoning that all work associated with any release of liability was for the PR's personal benefit, did not provide any benefit to the estate, and were not appropriate administrative expenses. The Commissioner spent quite a long time dressing down the PR and his counsel for this misappropriation of estate resources. The amount of fees was substantial, I can't remember the exact figure but it was well over $20k, so the sheer amount may have been what sent the commissioner over the edge. Still a good cautionary example.<div><br></div><div>Tara M. Roberts</div><div>Puget Sound Law pllc</div><div><a href="mailto:roberts@pugetsoundlaw.com">roberts@pugetsoundlaw.com</a></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Doug Schafer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:schafer@pobox.com" target="_blank">schafer@pobox.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I have doubts that RPC
1.8(h) applies, or that the requested release of the PR's lawyer
is improper. The estate beneficiaries are not clients or former
clients of the PR's lawyer, so RPC 1.8(h) by its terms does not
apply. But if a beneficiary refuses to sign a release of the PR,
then the PR's lawyer reasonably might advise his client (PR) to
opt for a costly judicial discharge by filing a final report and
petition for distribution and schedule a hearing (rather than
filing a declaration of completion) for a judicial decree of
distribution and discharge of the PR. (RCW 11.76.040 - .060).
However, if a beneficiary signs a release of the PR but strikes
out the phrase releasing the PR's lawyer, I believe the lawyer
ought to consider that an acceptable release, and the lawyer
should rely on Trask v. Butler, 123 Wn.2d 835, to shield him/her
from liability. If the lawyer in such a case insists on a
personal release of the lawyer, I believe the lawyer's interests
are then conflicting with his/her client's interests in
expeditiously closing the estate.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">RPC 1.8(h) reads:</font><br>
(h) A lawyer shall not: <br>
(1) make an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer's liability
to a client for malpractice unless
permitted by law and the client is independently represented by a
lawyer in making the
agreement; or <br>
(2) settle a claim or potential claim for such liability with an
unrepresented client or former client
unless that person is advised in writing of the desirability of
seeking and is given a reasonable
opportunity to seek the advice of an independent lawyer in
connection therewith.<br>
<br>
Doug Schafer, in Tacoma<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 9/27/2016 4:06 PM, Karen E. Boxx
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<br>
<span style="color:#1f497d">Sounds like a potential violation of
RPC 1.8(h).
<u></u><u></u></span><br>
<br>
<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span><br>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<br>
<b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com" target="_blank">wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.<wbr>com</a>
[<a href="mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com" target="_blank">mailto:wsbapt-bounces@lists.<wbr>wsbarppt.com</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 27, 2016 3:09 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com" target="_blank">wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBAPT] Self-Serving Receipt of Heir<u></u><u></u></span><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<u></u> <u></u><br>
<br>
Just saw something that raised my eyebrows in a probate where I
represent a beneficiary. The PR’s attorney prepared, and is
distributing for signature, a “Receipt of Heirs” that releases
the estate, the PR,
<u>AND THE PR’S ATTORNEY</u>. It releases “[PR’s attorney’s
name], in his capacity as attorney for the personal
representative, from any further or other liability with regard
to this matter.” This just doesn’t pass the smell test for me.
OR, should I start preparing my Receipt of Heirs by releasing <i>me</i>
for probates I am handling??? What is the common practice out
there in probate land?<u></u><u></u><br>
<br>
<u></u> <u></u><br>
<br>
<a name="m_-38189546063443797_Paul_Neumiller"><span><img src="cid:part1.DC0CCAF8.E23195AA@pobox.com" height="150" width="250"></span></a><span><u></u><u></u></span><br>
<br>
<span><u></u> <u></u></span><br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________
WSBAPT mailing list
<a href="mailto:WSBAPT@lists.wsbarppt.com" target="_blank">WSBAPT@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>
<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/wsbapt</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
WSBAPT mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WSBAPT@lists.wsbarppt.com">WSBAPT@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/wsbapt</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>