Appellee
Mark Papazian, a lawyer, prepared the will and trust documents that left the
bulk of decedent Robert D. Mardigian’s estate to Papazian and his children.
Appellants are the decedent’s relatives, who challenged the will and trust. The
probate court granted summary disposition to appellants, finding that the
testamentary documents drafted by appellee that benefitted appellee and his
children violated the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 1.8(c) and
would not be enforced. Appellee appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed in a
split published opinion. The majority applied In re Powers Estate, 375 Mich 150
(1965), holding that the drafter of a will or trust is not disqualified from
inheriting under the instrument, but there is a presumption of undue influence.
The majority remanded the case to the probate court for further proceedings
under that standard. The dissent would have affirmed on the basis that In re
Powers has been superseded by MRPC 1.8(c), which expressly prohibits a lawyer
from preparing an instrument for a client that gives the lawyer or an immediate
relative of the lawyer any substantial testamentary gift. Appellants sought
leave to appeal in this Court. Following oral argument on the application for
leave to appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address: (1)
whether the rebuttable presumption of undue influence set forth in In re
Powers, 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; and (3) if In re Powers 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?