Attorney Battles To Keep Millions He Left Himself In Client’s Will


Attorney Battles For Millions He Left Himself In Client's Will

Editor’s note: this post was originally published on 03/24/2016. It was updated on 02/24/17 and 07/10/17 to reflect new developments.

The Michigan Supreme Court will decide if an attorney who was retained to plan the estate of his dying friend, and left $14 million of his friend’s $17 million estate to himself and his children, must give up his windfall.


The Detroit Free Press reported that Attorney Mark Papazian prepared a will and trust that named himself as Bobby Mardigian’s personal representative, awarded Papazian all of Mardigian’s personal property, created a $5-million trust for each of Papazian’s two children, and left Papazian the residual value of the estate, after expenses and gifts to other beneficiaries[1].

Mardigian died of lung cancer in January, 2012, at age 59. He was divorced and had no children.

Heirs Sue To Overturn the Will and Trust

When Papazian tried to introduce the will and trust he had prepared into probate, along with a petition to be appointed as Bobby Mardigian’s personal representative, Mardig-ian’s brother Ed Mardigian, Ed’s two sons, and Bobby’s girlfriend and two of his nieces, sued in county probate court to disallow the will and trust.

Ed Mardigian and his sons claimed they were Bobby Mardigian’s lawful heirs, and con-tended that a letter Bobby wrote after he had executed the will and trust prepared by Papazian, should instead be submitted into probate as his will and an amendment to his trust.

After discovery, Ed Mardigian moved for partial summary disposition, and asked the probate court to void all gifts to Papazian and his children contained in Bobby Mardig-ian’s will and trust, because they violated public policy, and were thus unenforceable.

Mardigian cited Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8(c): “A lawyer shall not pre-pare an instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer as parent, child, sibling, or spouse any substantial gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, except where the client is related to the donee.” His attorney argued, “for over 100 years, the Supreme Court has ‘bluntly warned’ lawyers not to receive gifts from clients under wills they themselves have drafted…Mark Papazian did it anyway…in flagrant disregard of his ethical duties…[2].

The probate court denied Ed Mardigian’s motion.

Attorney Defends His Actions

Papazian claims that if the Michigan Legislature wanted to prohibit attorneys who draft wills from leaving bequests to themselves, it would pass a statute to that effect, as some states have done.

Further, Papazian said that even if he committed misconduct, he and his children shouldn’t be prevented from receiving bequests from a client he says was also his dear friend for 30 years.

He claims the will should be nullified only if he exerted “undue influence” on Bobby Mar-digian, but there’s no evidence of that.

As proof, Papazian claims “Bobby consulted repeatedly with both an independent attor-ney and Comerica Bank wealth management officials, about his estate documents in the six months after he executed the contested will and trust…Even after consulting these independent professionals, Bobby made no changes to the documents which Mr. Papazian had participated in drafting.[3]

However, Papazian also first asserted that Roy Luttman, his then law partner, had drafted the trust documents, but when deposed, Luttman testified: “absolutely not, une-quivocally no, never, did not do it…[4]

Probate Court Ruling 

In November, 2013, days before the case was to be tried in probate court, Papazian ad-mitted he had prepared both the will and trust. The judge ruled that this violated public policy, and declared both documents unenforceable. He also approved Ed Mardigian’s motion for summary disposition, reversing his earlier denial.[5]

On the scheduled trial date, the judge denied Papazian’s motion for a stay. He chose not to participate in the proceedings. The other parties – Ed Mardigian and his two sons, Bobby Mardigian’s girlfriend and two nieces, and J.P. Morgan bank – reached a settle-ment regarding the distribution of funds, and the jury was excused. The judge denied Papazian’s motion for reconsideration.


Papazian then appealed the probate court’s approval of Ed Mardigian’s motion for sum-mary disposition to the Court of Appeals, which overturned it in a 2-1 decision last Octo-ber.[6]

The Court based its ruling on In re Powers Estate, 375 Mich 150, 156, 176, 179; 134 NW2d 148 (1965): “our Supreme Court held that a will, (leaving) the bulk of the estate to a member of the family of the attorney who drafted the will, and also naming the attorney as an additional beneficiary, was not necessarily invalid. Rather… a question of undue influence exists…undue influence arising from the relationship is presumed to have been exerted as the means to secure the testamentary gift…Powers is directly on point to the facts presented in the instant case, and as such is binding on this Court.[7]

The court concluded that Papazian “benefited from the transaction,” and “as the drafter of the documents, he had an opportunity to influence (Bobby Mardigian’s) decision…It is presumed he exerted undue influence,” but “case law and existing statutes afford (Papazian) the opportunity to attempt to prove by competent evidence that the presump-tion of undue influence should be set aside… we reverse and remand to the…Probate Court for (further) proceedings.”[8]

Supreme Court

Ed Mardigian and the other plaintiffs applied to the Michigan Supreme Court for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals’ ruling.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the matter on 01/10/2017.

Mardigian’s attorney again argued that Papazian violated Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8(c) by drafting the will and benefiting from it, and the gifts he left to himself and his children should thus be set aside. Papazian’s attorney again relied on In re Powers Estate, to argue that Papazian should be allowed to prove that he didn’t unduly influence Bobby Mardigian.

On 07/07/17, the Court issued an order granting plaintiffs’ application, and ordering both sides to submit briefs. The order states:

“On January 10, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the October 8, 2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the rebuttable presumption of undue influence set forth in In re Powers Estate, 375 Mich 150 (1965), when used as a means to determine the testator’s intent, is a workable rule that sufficiently protects the testator when the testator’s lawyer violates MRPC 1.8(c); (2) whether this Court’s adoption of MRPC 1.8(c) warrants overruling In re Powers Estate; and (3) if In re Powers Estate is overruled, whether a violation of MRPC 1.8(c) should bear on the validity of the gift provided to the testator’s lawyer under the testamentary instrument; and if so, how?

The Attorney Grievance Commission, the Probate Section and the Elder Law and Disability Rights Section of the State Bar of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. In addition, the State Bar of Michigan, or an appropriate committee of the State Bar authorized in accordance with the State Bar’s bylaws, is invited to file a brief amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.”


The court is signaling that it takes a dim view of Papazian’s actions, even “opening the door” to overturning  a 50+ year-old precedential case that favors him. It’s now up to Mardigian’s attorney to take advantage of that opening.

He’ll presumably seek to have the ‘invited  parties’ listed by the Court submit amicus curiae briefs supporting his client’s position. It’ll be interesting to see if any such briefs are filed in support of Papazian’s position.

Legal Malpractice

If Papazian and Ed Mardigian, etc., don’t settle the probate court litigation, and Mardig-ian loses the case and all appeals, will he have any other options?

One option is to sue Papazian for legal malpractice. It’s unclear if he has already done so. If he did, the lawsuit was likely either stayed or dismissed without prejudice, pending the outcome of the probate court litigation, or dismissed with prejudice, either because the statute of limitations had tolled, or Mardigian was unable to maintain a cause of action.

Michigan’s statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims is two-years from the last date of service,[12] with a six-month “discovery rule” exception for errors discovered after the two-year period has expired. The will was executed in June, 2011 (after the trust), and Bobby Mardigian died in January, 2012, so two years after the last date that Papazian could have provided estate planning services to him would have been between June 2013 and January 2014.

Therefore, Ed Mardigian would have had to sue Papazian by the appropriate date within that timeframe for his suit not to be time-barred. The six-month discovery rule doesn’t apply, because he discovered the “error” in the will and trust before his brother’s death, i.e., within two years from the last date that Papazian provided services.

If Ed Mardigian did sue Papazian for malpractice, could he maintain a cause of action?

In Mieras v DeBona, 452 Mich 278, 299; 550 NW2d 202 (1996), the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that a will’s intended beneficiaries are third-party beneficiaries of the rela-tionship between the testator and the attorney contracted to draft his/her will. That at-torney thus owes the beneficiaries a tort-based duty to draft the will with the “requisite standard of care”[13], which means they can maintain a cause of action for legal mal-practice against the attorney for breaching that duty.

If Ed Mardigian was named as a beneficiary in his brother’s will – the news article stated that Papazian left himself “the residual value of the estate after…gifts to other benefic-iaries” – then he would have standing to sue Papazian.

However, in Mieras v DeBona, the Court also ruled that a will-drafting attorney’s duty is limited to fulfilling the testator’s intent, as expressed in the will.[14] Thus, a party alleging legal malpractice by the drafting attorney is prohibited from using “extrinsic evidence to prove that the testator’s intent is other than that set forth in the will.[15]

Ed Mardigian would thus be unable to use the letter Bobby Mardigian wrote after ex-ecuting the will and trust prepared by Papazian, to prove that Bobby’s intent was other than what his will stated. As a result, it’s unlikely that Ed Mardigian would prevail, if he sued Papazian for malpractice.

If Ed Mardigian wasn’t named as a beneficiary in his brother’s will, then he wouldn’t have standing to sue Papazian, but he could claim that happened only because Papazian ex-erted undue influence on Bobby Mardigian.


About the author

Curtis Cooper is principal of Lawyers Insurance Group, a legal malpractice insurance brokerage that aggressively comparison shops on attorneys’ behalf to find them the best terms available in the market.

Contact him by phone: (202) 802-6415, or email: ccooper “at”

To obtain the best possible terms on your firm’s malpractice insurance, download, complete, and return this one-page premium estimate form.


End notes

  1. Egan, Paul, “Family Fights Attorney Getting Millions From Client’s Will”, DETROIT FREE PRESS, April 10, 2015,


  1. Ibid.


  1. Ibid


  1. Ibid




  1. Egan, Paul, “Court: Lawyer’s $14M Inheritance Unethical, Not Invalid”, DETROIT FREE PRESS, October 9, 2015,


  1. See note 5 above.


  1. See note 5 above.


  1. See note 5 above.


  1. Michigan Compiled Laws, Section 700.2501, ESTATES AND PROTECTED INDIVIDUALS CODE (EXCERPT) Act 386 of 1998


  1. Silver, Kenneth, “Can Your Lawyer Inherit Your Assets?” Hertz Schram PC blog, January 11, 2016,


    1. Neuman, Kenneth, “Legal Malpractice Actions Now Subject to Six-Year Statute of Repose”, NEUMAN ANDERSON, P.C., Blog, April 24, 2013


      1. See RONALD B. CHARFOOS and CAROL CHARFOOS TATOR, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v JACK M. SCHULTZ, Defendant-Appellee, No. 283155, Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2007-084125-NM,


      1. Ibid


      1. Ibid.