A high-stakes legal battle over an $18 million estate has culminated in a dramatic reversal of a jury's decision. The case, filed by Jeffrey G. Grossman and his family against attorney John Peter Wakeman, Jr., and the Wakeman Law Group, Inc., was heard in the Court of Appeal of the State of California on September 4, 2024.
Jeffrey G. Grossman, along with Alexis and Nicholas Grossman, filed the complaint in Ventura County Superior Court against John Peter Wakeman, Jr., alleging legal malpractice. The plaintiffs argued that Wakeman had negligently prepared estate planning documents for Dr. A. Richard Grossman that disinherited them despite their being intended beneficiaries.
Dr. A. Richard Grossman, a renowned figure in burn surgery who founded the Grossman Burn Centers, passed away in March 2014 at age 81. His estate was valued at $18 million and was left entirely to his fourth wife, Elizabeth Grossman, according to his 2012 estate planning documents prepared by Wakeman. This move disinherited his sons Jeffrey and Peter Grossman as well as Peter’s children—Alexis and Nicholas—despite Richard's alleged intentions to provide for them.
During the trial, evidence was presented showing conflicting testimonies about Richard's true intentions. While some witnesses claimed Richard wanted to leave everything to Elizabeth trusting her to take care of Jeffrey and the grandchildren, others testified that he had always expressed a desire to provide directly for them.
The jury initially found that Jeffrey and his family were indeed intended beneficiaries of Richard’s estate and awarded them $9.5 million in damages due to Wakeman’s negligence: $4.75 million each to Jeffrey and the grandchildren.
However, Wakeman contended that he owed no duty to Jeffrey or his family since they were not his clients; his duty was solely towards Richard Grossman. He argued that without clear evidence of Richard’s intent to benefit Jeffrey and his family directly, there could be no malpractice liability.
The appellate court agreed with Wakeman's argument citing insufficient evidence of a clear intent from Richard to benefit the plaintiffs directly through his estate planning documents. They concluded that without such clear intent, no duty of care existed towards the plaintiffs under established legal principles governing attorney-client relationships and third-party beneficiaries.
As a result, the appellate court reversed the judgments against Wakeman and dismissed any further motions related to this case as moot.
Representing John Peter Wakeman Jr., Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld law firm with Ellyn E. Nesbit led their defense while Ritt Hodges alongside D. Jay Ritt; Law Offices of Nicholas S Nassif represented Jeffrey G Grossman et al.
Judge Henry J Walsh presided over this significant case under Case ID No B3829459 (Consolidated with B332351).