In Kentucky, when a lawyer represents the fiduciary of a decedent's estate or trust, does the lawyer also represent or owe special duties to the beneficiaries, and may the lawyer represent both?

Plain-English summary

The Committee addressed a recurring problem in trust and estate practice: when a lawyer represents the fiduciary of a decedent's estate or trust, whom does the lawyer represent, and what are the duties to beneficiaries? Drawing on ABA Formal Op. 94-380 and the ACTEC Commentaries, and noting Comment 12 to KRPC 1.7 (which acknowledges the identity of the client may be unclear), the Committee adopted the majority view: the lawyer's client is the fiduciary, not the estate, the trust, or the beneficiaries.

On the four original questions, the Committee concluded: (1) the fact that the fiduciary owes duties to the beneficiaries does not by itself expand or limit the lawyer's obligations to the fiduciary; (2) it imposes no obligations on the lawyer toward the beneficiaries that the lawyer would not have toward other third parties; (3) the lawyer's confidentiality duty under KRPC 1.6 is not altered by the client's fiduciary status; and (4) the lawyer may also represent the beneficiaries, but only with the informed consent of the multiple clients after consultation about the limits and consequences if a conflict arises. The Committee also directed that, to avoid confusion, a lawyer should not imply representation of the estate, trust, or beneficiaries, and should not use the label "lawyer for the estate" or "lawyer for the trust."

The opinion was amended in September 2019 to add Question 5, addressing Branham v. Stewart, 307 S.W.3d 94 (Ky. 2010): a lawyer hired by a next friend or guardian to bring an action for a minor represents the minor (the real party in interest), with the next friend or guardian acting as the minor's agent. The court in Branham made clear it was not holding that a lawyer for a trustee or personal representative of an estate has an attorney-client relationship with beneficiaries, so the fiduciary holding of the 1997 opinion stands.

In practice

Under this opinion, as amended, a Kentucky lawyer retained by the fiduciary of a decedent's estate or trust represents the fiduciary; the lawyer does not, by that representation alone, represent the beneficiaries or owe them duties beyond those owed any third party, and the duty of confidentiality to the fiduciary is not diminished. The opinion holds that the lawyer may represent both the fiduciary and beneficiaries only after obtaining informed consent following consultation about the conflict risks. In the distinct next-friend context, the opinion holds that the lawyer's client is the minor, not the guardian who retained the lawyer.

Common questions

Q: When a Kentucky lawyer represents an estate's fiduciary, who is the client?

A: Per the opinion, the fiduciary. The Committee adopted the majority view that the lawyer represents the fiduciary, not the estate, the trust, or the beneficiaries.

Q: Does the lawyer owe the beneficiaries special duties?

A: The opinion concluded no. The fiduciary's duties to beneficiaries do not impose parallel duties on the lawyer beyond those owed to other third parties.

Q: Is the confidentiality duty weaker because the client is a fiduciary?

A: Per the opinion, no. The Committee concluded KRPC 1.6 confidentiality is unchanged by the client's fiduciary status (subject to the usual limits on assisting crime or fraud).

Q: Can the lawyer represent both the fiduciary and the beneficiaries?

A: The opinion concluded yes, with a qualified yes: only with the informed consent of the multiple clients after consultation about the limits and the consequences if a conflict develops.

Q: Who is the client when a guardian hires a lawyer to sue for a minor?

A: Per the 2019 amendment and Branham v. Stewart, the minor. The lawyer must treat the minor as the client and the next friend or guardian as the minor's agent.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets KRPC 1.7 (conflicts and multiple representation, with Comment 12 on estate administration; the Model Rule 1.7 counterpart), KRPC 1.6 (confidentiality; Model Rule 1.6), KRPC 1.2 (scope of representation; Model Rule 1.2), and KRPC 1.16 (termination if the client persists in fraud; Model Rule 1.16), and adopts the ACTEC Commentaries and ABA Formal Op. 94-380. The 2019 amendment incorporates Branham v. Stewart (Ky. 2010) and Pete v. Anderson (Ky. 2013).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 / KRPC 1.7 (conflicts; multiple representation; estate administration)
• MR 1.6 / KRPC 1.6 (confidentiality)
• MR 1.2 / KRPC 1.2 (scope of representation); MR 1.16 / KRPC 1.16 (termination)

Cases:

• Branham v. Stewart, 307 S.W.3d 94 (Ky. 2010), a lawyer for a next friend represents the minor
• Pete v. Anderson, 413 S.W.3d 293 (Ky. 2013), next-friend representation

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Op. 94-380 (1994): a lawyer for a fiduciary does not represent the beneficiaries
• ACTEC Commentaries on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct

See also

• KBA Ethics Op. E-414: Attorney-Client Relationship in Title IV-D Child Support Enforcement
• KBA Ethics Op. E-399: A Lawyer Negotiating Employment With the Opposing Firm

Source

• Landing page: https://kybar.org/For-Members/Rules-Ethics-Information/Ethics-Opinions
• Original PDF: https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Admin/Ethics%20Opinions/KBA_E-401.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Ethics Opinion KBA E-401
Issued: September 1997, Amended: September 2019
The Rules of Professional Conduct are amended periodically. Lawyers should consult
the current version of the rule and comments, SCR 3.130 (available at
http://www.kybar.org/237), before relying on this opinion.
This opinion was first issued in 1997 and stands for the proposition that representation of
a fiduciary of an estate does not create an attorney client relationship with beneficiaries. In
Branham v. Stewart, 307 S.W.3d 94 (Ky 2010), the Kentucky Supreme Court held that an
attorney hired by a parent/guardian in a personal injury case has an attorney client with the
injured minor (the ward). In so holding, however, the Court referred to E-401 and made it clear
that it was not holding that an attorney for a trustee or personal representative of an estate has an
attorney client relationship with beneficiaries. The 1997 ethics opinion is thus modified to reflect
the Branham decision. Questions 1 through 4 and the accompanying discussion is reprinted
without change. Question 5 and the accompanying discussion addresses Branham.
Question 1:

Does a lawyer’s representation of a fiduciary of a decedent’s estate or trust
expand or limit the lawyer’s obligation to the fiduciary under the Rules of
Professional Conduct?

Answer:

No.

Question 2:

Does a lawyer’s representation of a fiduciary of a decedent’s trust or estate
impose on the lawyer obligations to the beneficiaries of the decedent’s trust or
estate that the lawyer would not have toward third parties?

Answer:

No.

Question 3:

Is the lawyer’s obligation to preserve client confidences under Rule 1.6 altered by
the fact that the client is a fiduciary?

Answer:

No.

Question 4:

May the lawyer for the fiduciary also represent the beneficiaries of the decedent’s
trust or estate?

Answer:

Qualified Yes.

References:

ABA Formal Op. 94-380 (1994); Privilege and Confidentiality Issues When a
Lawyer Represents a Fiduciary, 30 Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal 541
(1996); ACTEC Commentaries on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 28
Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal 865 (1994); Developments Regarding

the Professional Responsibility of the Estate Administration Lawyer: The Effect of
the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 26 Real Property, Probate and Trust
Journal 1 (1991); When Loyalties Collide: Courts Resolve Conflicting Duties, 135
Answer on Their Toes, 135 Trusts & Estates 22 (1996); and The Fiduciary, His
Counsel And The Attorney - Client Privilege, 136 Trusts & Estates 29 (1997);
§73, Duty to Certain Non-Clients, Restatement, The Law Governing Lawyers.
Question 5: Does an attorney hired by a next friend/guardian to bring an action for a minor/ward
have an attorney client relationship with the minor/ward?
Answer:

Yes

References: Branham v. Stewart, 307 SW.3d 94 (Ky 2010); Pete v. Anderson, 413 S.W.3d 293
(Ky 2013)
OPINION
From time to time Kentucky lawyers have requested advice from the Committee
regarding a lawyer’s responsibilities in the context of the administration of trusts and estates.
The primary problem in answering such questions arises from the fundamental question: Whom
does the lawyer represent? Does the lawyer represent the beneficiaries of the estate or trust; does
the lawyer represent the estate or trust entity or does the lawyer represent the fiduciary? The
complexity of this problem is acknowledged in Comment 12 to Rule 1.7, which states:
Conflict questions may also arise in estate planning and estate
administration. A lawyer may be called upon to prepare wills for several family
members, such as husband and wife, and, depending upon the circumstances, a
conflict of interest may arise. In estate administration the identity of the client may
be unclear under the law of a particular jurisdiction. Under one view, the client is
the fiduciary; under another view the client is the estate or trust, including its
beneficiaries. The lawyer should make clear the relationship to the parties
involved.
By issuing this Opinion it is the Committee’s intent to clarify a Kentucky lawyer’s
obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The examination of these issues must focus on Rule 1.7, Conflict of Interest: General
Rule, and the problems generated by a lawyer’s multiple representation of clients. The American
College of Trust and Estate Counsel, hereafter referred to as “ACTEC,” adopted Commentaries
to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in October 1993, and their Commentaries and the
Reporter’s Notes on the ACTEC Commentaries are helpful to this analysis. The Reporter’s
Notes contained the following statements:
Lawyer for Fiduciary. Under the majority view, a lawyer who represents a fiduciary
... stands in a lawyer-client relationship with the fiduciary and not with respect to
the fiduciary estate or the beneficiaries. ...

Duties to Beneficiaries. The lawyer who represents a fiduciary generally is not
usually considered also to represent the beneficiaries. However, most courts have
concluded that the lawyer owes some duties to them. Some courts subject the
lawyer to the duties because the beneficiaries are characterized as the lawyer’s
“joint,” “derivative” or “secondary” clients. Other courts do so because the
lawyer stands in a fiduciary relationship with respect to the fiduciary, who, in turn,
owes fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries. The duties, commonly called “fiduciary
duties,” arise largely because of the nature of the representation and the relative
positions of the lawyer, fiduciary, and beneficiaries. However, note that the
existence and nature of the duties may be affected by the nature and extent of the
representation that a lawyer provides to a fiduciary. Thus, a lawyer who
represents a fiduciary individually regarding a fiduciary estate may owe few, if
any, duties to the beneficiaries apart from the duties that the lawyer owes to other
nonclients.
In addition to the Reporter’s Notes, this Committee finds the following comments from
the ACTEC Commentaries on Model Rule 1.7 instructive for purposes of clarifying the lawyer’s
obligations to the fiduciary, to the beneficiaries of an estate or trust, and the problems of multiple
representation.
General Nonadversary Character of Estates and Trusts Practice:
Representation of Multiple Clients. It is often appropriate for a lawyer to represent
more than one member of the same family in connection with their estate plans,
more than one beneficiary with common interests in an estate or trust
administration matter.... In some instances the clients may actually be better served
by such a representation, which can result in more economical and better
coordinated estate plans prepared by counsel who has a better overall
understanding of all of the relevant family and property considerations. ... Multiple
representation is also generally appropriate because the interests of the clients in
cooperation, including obtaining cost effective representation and achieving
common objectives, often clearly predominate over their limited inconsistent
interests. ...
Disclosures to Multiple Clients. Before, or within a reasonable time after,
commencing the representation, a lawyer who is consulted by multiple parties with
related interests should discuss with them the implications of a joint representation
(or a separate representation if the lawyer believes that mode of representation to
be more appropriate and separate representation is permissible under the
applicable local rules). In particular, the prospective clients and the lawyer should
discuss the extent to which material information imparted by either client would be
shared with the other and the possibility that the lawyer would be required to
withdraw if a conflict in their interests developed to the degree that the lawyer
could not effectively represent both of them. The information may be best

understood by the clients if it is discussed with them in person and also provided
to them in written form, as in an engagement letter or brochure.1
This Committee adopts the ACTEC Commentaries because the Commentaries properly
set forth a lawyer’s ethical obligations. Further, this Committee agrees with ABA Formal
Opinion 94-380, and adopts the majority view; that is, that a lawyer who represents a fiduciary
does not also represent the beneficiaries. We reject the view that a lawyer who represents a
fiduciary also owes fiduciary obligations to the beneficiaries that in some circumstances will
override obligations otherwise owed by the lawyer to the fiduciary, such as the obligation of
confidentiality. We also reject the view that when a lawyer represents a fiduciary in a trust or
estate matter, the client is not the fiduciary, but is the trust estate. We adopt the following
comments made in the ABA’s Formal Opinion:
When the fiduciary is the lawyer’s client all of the Model Rules
prescribing a lawyer’s duties to a client apply. The scope of the lawyer’s
representation is defined by and limited by Model Rule 1.2. The lawyer must
diligently represent the fiduciary, see Model Rule 1.3, preserve in confidence
communications between the lawyer and the fiduciary, see Model Rule 4.1(a). The
fact that the fiduciary client has obligations toward the beneficiaries does not
impose parallel obligations on the lawyer, or otherwise expand or supersede the
lawyer’s responsibilities under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
A lawyer’s duty of confidentiality to a client is not lessened by the fact that the
client is a fiduciary. Although the Model Rules prohibit the lawyer from actively
participating in criminal or fraudulent activity or active concealment of a client’s
wrongdoing, they do not authorize the lawyer to breach confidences to prevent such
wrongdoing.
The ABA’s Opinion, in Footnote 6, included the following important caveats:
6. The Model Rules impose a number of limitations on a lawyer
representing a fiduciary. For example, a lawyer may not participate in a breach of
fiduciary duty by the fiduciary that involves fraud or criminal activity because the
lawyer’s conduct is limited by Model Rule 1.2(d), which provides that a lawyer
may not actively participate in a client’s criminal or fraudulent activity. This rule
applies to all lawyers, not just those representing fiduciaries. Lawyers are also
prohibited from actively concealing client breaches of fiduciary duty, or actively
1

The Rules of Professional Conduct define "consult" or "consultation" as denoting "communication of
information reasonably sufficient to permit the client to appreciate the significance of the matter in question." A
lawyer is obligated to disclose to the client the existence of the conflict, that multiple representation is sought, and
then disclose the implications thereof, including its risks and advantages. This Committee recommends that all
communications between a lawyer and multiple clients regarding conflicts be in writing, and that the client’s consent
be evidenced in writing; however, the Committee is not imposing an additional ethical requirement that the lawyer
commit the matter to writing.

assisting in such concealment, by Model Rules 4.1(a) (a lawyer shall not lie to
third parties) and 3.3(a)(1) and (2) (a lawyer shall not lie to or conceal information
from a tribunal). If a lawyer knows that a breach of fiduciary duty has occurred,
and that an accounting is misleading in that it hides wrongdoing committed by the
fiduciary, the lawyer is expressly prohibited by Model Rule 3.3(a) from presenting
the accounting to the court. Further, the lawyer is prohibited by Model Rule
4.1(a) from representing to the beneficiaries that a false accounting is accurate.
These rules apply to a lawyer with a fiduciary client to the same extent as, but no
farther than, they apply in any other lawyer/tribunal/third party scenario.
Continuing in the text of the Opinion, the ABA Ethics Committee then made the
following comments:
Although a lawyer may not disclose confidences of the fiduciary, if the fiduciary
insists on continuing a course of fraudulent or criminal conduct, the lawyer may be
required to terminate the representation because the lawyer’s services will be
involved in that conduct, so as to invoke Rule 1.16(a)(1), or may have the option
of a voluntary withdrawal under Rule 1.16(b)(1). If either of these provisions of
Rule 1.16 applies, this will be not because the client is a fiduciary, but because the
client is acting in the manner described by the Rule. The client’s status is
irrelevant.
In Branham v. Stewart, 307 S.W.3d 94 (Ky 2010), the Court held that, in suits
brought on behalf of a minor by a next friend/guardian, the attorney represents the
minor, not the next friend/guardian. The minor is the real party in interest and the
next friend/guardian is a fiduciary acting on behalf of the minor. Therefore, the
lawyer must regard the minor as the client and the fiduciary, who hired the lawyer,
as the minor’s agent.
Based upon the instructive comments of the ACTEC Commentaries and the ABA Formal
Opinion, this Committee concludes with the following advice for Kentucky lawyers.
1.

In representing a fiduciary the lawyer’s client relationship is with the fiduciary
and not with the trust or estate, nor with the beneficiaries of a trust or estate.

2.

The fact that a fiduciary has obligations to the beneficiaries of the trust or estate
does not in itself either expand or limit the lawyer’s obligations to the fiduciary
under the Rules of Professional Conduct, nor impose on the lawyer obligations
toward the beneficiaries that the lawyer would not have toward other third parties.

3.

The lawyer’s obligation to preserve client’s confidences under Rule 1.6 is not
altered by the circumstance that the client is a fiduciary.

4.

A lawyer has a duty to advise multiple parties who are involved with a decedent’s
estate or trust regarding the identity of the lawyer’s client, and the lawyer’s

obligations to that client. A lawyer should not imply that the lawyer represents
the estate or trust or the beneficiaries of the estate or trust because of the
probability of confusion. Further, in order to avoid such confusion, a lawyer
should not use the term “lawyer for the estate” or the term “lawyer for the trust”
on documents or correspondence or in other dealings with the fiduciary or the
beneficiaries.
5.

A lawyer may represent the fiduciary of a decedent’s estate or a trust and the
beneficiaries of an estate or trust if the lawyer obtains the consent of the multiple
clients and explains the limitations on the lawyer’s actions in the event a conflict
arises, and the consequences to the clients if a conflict occurs. Further, a lawyer
may obtain the consent of multiple clients only after appropriate consultation with
the multiple clients at the time of the commencement of the representation.2

6.

In the letter of engagement, a lawyer hired by a next friend/guardian to represent a
minor in litigation should identify the minor as the client and the next
friend/guardian as the minor’s agent, authorized to act on the minor’s behalf.

Note to Reader
This ethics opinion has been formally adopted by the Board of Governors of the Kentucky
Bar Association under the provisions of Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 3.530 (or its predecessor
rule). The Rule provides that formal opinions are advisory only.

2

See footnote 1 above.