Noble v. Bruce

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the third party was not an intended beneficiary because the promisor “did not communicate or meet with” the third party
• holding that the Maryland Supreme Court would continue to apply the strict privity requirement in the will-drafting and estate-planning context and setting out several policy grounds in support of such a requirement
• concluding that the strict privity rule protects attorney-client confidentiality by not forcing an attorney into a position that requires him or her to reveal client confidences, which a client did not want revealed, during a legal malpractice action by a non-client beneficiary
• noting that, “in attorney malpractice cases, Maryland generally adheres to the strict privity rule”
• agreeing with the reasoning in Guy and, therefore, declining to apply the balancing factors approach in that case
• noting that an attorney's preoccupation or concern with potential lability to non-parties might result in a diminution in the quality of legal services provided because the attorney would need to weigh the client's interests against his or her lability risk

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).