- 31 -
giance to the estate, in the event that such
an adversarial situation arises. Even though
beneficiaries of a decedent's estate are
intended to benefit from the estate, an at-torney
for an estate cannot be held to a duty
to a beneficiary of an estate, due to the
potentially adversarial relationship between
the estate's interest in administering the
estate and the interests of the beneficiaries
of the estate'; finding no duty between the
attorney and beneficiaries of estate);
Rutkoski v. Hollis, 235 Ill. App. 3d 744,
751, 600 N.E.2d 1284[, 1289] (1992) (holding
that the attorney for the executor of an
estate, [where the executor] was also a bene-ficiary
of that same estate, owed no duty
based on the attorney-client relationship
between the attorney and executor to him as a
beneficiary: 'Defendant's primary duty was to
Charles as executor of the estate and not to
the beneficiaries of the estate, including
Charles'; also noting that the plaintiff
failed to cite any case in which an attorney
who represented an estate was found to have
