WPI 107.03 Duty to Non-Client—Special Verdict Form
6 WAPRAC WPI 107.03Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
6 Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 107.03 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Part IX. Particularized Standards of Conduct
Chapter 107. Legal Malpractice
WPI 107.03 Duty to Non-Client—Special Verdict Form
QUESTION: Did(name of non-client)prove the following fact[s]:
(Insert the disputed facts that underlie the determination of whether the attorney owed a duty to the non-client. A sample question is set forth in the Comment below.)
ANSWER: (Write “yes” or “no”)
(DIRECTION: If your answer is “yes,” then you will proceed to consider the other elements of the plaintiff's [legal malpractice] claim set forth in Instruction No. .
If your answer is “no,” then your verdict is complete for this claim; sign and date this special verdict and notify the bailiff.)
| Date: | |
| Presiding Juror |
NOTE ON USE
Use this verdict form with WPI 107.02 (Duty to Non-Client). The verdict form applies only in the unusual circumstances discussed in the Note on Use and Comment to WPI 107.02 (Duty to Non-Client).
COMMENT
The questions to insert into this verdict form will depend on the factual dispute involved in the particular case. Practitioners will need to carefully consider the phrasing of the question, to make sure that the factual dispute is phrased in a way that is determinative of the Trask analysis, per the discussion in the Note on Use and Comment to WPI 107.02 (Duty to Non-Client). For example, in a case involving the formation of a contract, the following question could be used if a “yes” answer would tip the Trask balancing test in favor of a duty to the non-client and a “no” answer would yield the opposite result:
[Current as of September 2018.]
Westlaw. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |