The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, recently decided a case that almost seems comical, but the parties in the case probably aren’t laughing.

Jack Murray engaged the services of William E. Spiegle III, Esq., to draft his last will and testament.  Mr. Murray left the entirety of his estate to family members or to trusts for the benefit of family members.

Two months after signing his last will and testament, Mr. Murray went to a bank in Florida.  He asked the bank representative to name a trust as the beneficiary of one of his bank accounts.  The bank representative dissuaded Mr. Murray from naming the trust as the beneficiary of the bank account because Mr. Murray did not have a copy of the trust document with him.   Instead, Mr. Murray named “William Spiegle Atty” as the designated beneficiary of the bank account.

At the time of Mr. Murray’s death, the Florida bank account held approximately $143,000, which was roughly one-third the value of Mr. Murray’s entire estate.

Mr. Spiegel wrote a letter to the executor of Mr. Murray’s estate essentially saying that he had no idea why Mr. Murray had named him as the designated beneficiary of the account, but he could only conclude that Mr. Murray wanted him to have the money.  Mr. Murray and Mr. Spiegel did not have a relationship outside their attorney-client relationship, and they had not communicated with one another between the time Mr. Murray signed his last will and testament and when he opened the bank account naming Mr. Spiegel as the designated beneficiary.

As a general principle, it is unethical for an attorney to draft a Will for a client through which the client names the attorney as a beneficiary of the estate.  In other words, if a client came into my office and told me he wanted to name me as a beneficiary of his estate, I could not draft that Will.  (For the record, and unfortunately, that has never happened to me, but if it did, I couldn’t draft the Will.)

In this case, Mr. Spiegel did not draft a Will that named him as a beneficiary.  Instead, for some reason, Mr. Murray asked his bank to name Mr. Spiegel as the beneficiary of a bank account that  he owned.  That reason seems rather plain to me, and it seemed rather plain to the trial court and appellate division.

The bank representative dissuaded Mr. Murray from naming a trust as the beneficiary of the account because Mr. Murray did not have the trust document with him.  So, Mr. Murray did the next best thing in his mind–he named Mr. Spiegel, in his capacity as an attorney, as the beneficiary of the account.  My guess is, Mr. Murray thought that by doing this the money would find its way into the trusts that Mr. Spiegel had drafted for Mr. Murray.

There is no question that Mr. Murray was mistaken in this belief and that his intentions became muddled by his actions.  The thing with death wishes–such as those found in a Will or carried out through a beneficiary designation–is that the person making the wish is dead.  Mr. Murray isn’t around any longer to tell us what he was thinking.  But I think it is rather clear, and two courts thought it rather clear, that Mr. Murray did not want to leave a third of his estate to the attorney who drafted his Will.

The court rescinded the beneficiary designation, permitting the money to pass through Mr. Murray’s Will to his family.  I wonder how much the estate spent in legal fees to obtain this result.  When making an estate plan, you need to think carefully about the words you use, because you won’t be around to fill in the gaps of your plan.  What seems clear to you may not be as clear to others.