Appeals panel revisits trust‑protector dispute and attorney‑duty claims after Delaware litigation

A prolonged, multi‑forum dispute over the drafting of two family trusts returned to the appeals panel Friday as counsel debated whether the law firm representing the parties had an affirmative duty to highlight a redline change that removed Jeremy Paradise’s control over selection of a trust protector.

Dana Kerhan, arguing for Jeremy Paradise, said the redlined draft buried a "major change" that materially altered who could remove and replace the trust protector and that the firm should have drawn the change to the client’s attention. "Had Mintz not been representing him, he would have been much more likely to scrutinize the draft," Kerhan said, urging that causation and damages should survive summary judgment.

Benjamin Littman, appearing for the defendants, pointed to extensive prior proceedings in Delaware, including trial and appellate consideration, and argued the Delaware courts found Paradise’s later, counterfactual theory unsupported by the record after full discovery and trial. Littman said Paradise received the bargained‑for liquidity and protective benefits and that the redline provided to the client made the change apparent.

The panel debated whether Preferred Fragrance and related authority preclude malpractice liability where changes are visible on the face of a redlined document, and whether differential treatment of communications to each brother created a jury question about notice and reliance. The court did not rule from the bench.