Smith v. Cimmet, 199 Cal. App. 4th 1381

An Oregon personal representative sues California attorneys who represented the predecessor in a prior suit against the decedent's business partner.
The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings, holding the successor had no standing because no client-attorney relationship existed with the current representative.
California law (Code Civ. Proc. § 1913, subd. (b)) was applied to determine whether a foreign representative may sue in California.
The court held the Oregon representative lacked capacity to sue in California because his authority does not extend beyond Oregon.
Ancillary administration could be sought in California to confer capacity to sue; the complaint, however, needed amendment to allege ancillary capacity.
The court concluded that a successor estate representative has standing to sue the predecessor's attorneys for malpractice under both California and Oregon law, and California's interest in regulating California attorneys supports applying California law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Oregon representative has capacity to sue in California	Smith argues capacity exists under Oregon law and is recognized here.	Cimmet & Pavone contend capacity is limited to the appointing jurisdiction.	Capacity to sue is not conferred by Oregon law; California law governs capacity.
Whether the Oregon representative has standing to sue the predecessor's attorneys	The successor has standing to sue for the benefit of the estate.	There was no privity/attorney-client relationship with the successor.	A successor representative has standing to sue the predecessor's attorneys under both California and Oregon law.
Conflict of laws and which state's law governs standing	Apply California/Oregon law based on governmental interest analysis; laws are the same or California has greater interest.	Roberts and Oregon law control; Oregon has interest in governing its estates and attorneys.	California law applies for standing, given California's interest in regulating California attorneys and the lack of true conflict.
Whether ancillary administration could confer capacity to sue	Ancillary appointment could confer capacity to sue as ancillary representative.	No ancillary appointment was pursued; capacity uncertain.	Plaintiff should be allowed to seek ancillary administration and amend to allege capacity.

Borissoff v. Taylor & Faust, 33 Cal.4th 523 (Cal. 2004) (holding successor fiduciary may sue predecessor’s attorney for malpractice)
Roberts v. Fearey, 162 Ore.App. 546 (Or. App. 1999) (trustee’s successor standing limited by privity concerns)
Galdjie v. Darwish, 113 Cal.App.4th 1331 (Cal. App. 2003) (foreign estate representative cannot generally sue here absent exceptions)
Estate of Rawitzer, 175 Cal. 585 (Cal. 1918) (ancillary administration and cross-jurisdiction considerations)
Vaughan v. Northup, 40 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1841) (administration authority limited to original jurisdiction)
Mayer v. Willing, 196 Cal.App.2d 379 (Cal. App. 1961) (expresses limits of extraterritorial authority of a fiduciary)