A recently filed federal lawsuit outlines claims that an attorney responsible for managing significant family trusts and estates allegedly placed his own interests above those of his clients, resulting in financial harm to the plaintiffs. The complaint was filed by Gwenn Winkhaus, Christa K. Goodell, and Lisa R. Kalberer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on March 19, 2026, naming McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Liffman Co., LPA (MLCL) and John S. Seich as defendants.
According to the filing, the plaintiffs seek to recover damages they allege were caused by repeated acts of legal malpractice committed by their former attorney. The complaint states: “This case seeks to recover the significant damages that Plaintiffs, their parents’ estate, and various irrevocable trusts for Plaintiffs’ benefit suffered as a result of their attorney’s multiple, repeated acts of legal malpractice.” The plaintiffs are daughters of Walter E. Kalberer and Jean C. Kalberer, both now deceased. They bring this action in individual capacities as well as representatives or beneficiaries related to several family trusts and estates.
The background section details how Walter E. Kalberer was a successful entrepreneur who built several businesses before retiring in 2000. He and his wife Jean were active philanthropists in Northeast Ohio until their deaths in 2024 and 2023 respectively. Over decades, they established multiple trusts intended to benefit their four daughters—including the plaintiffs—and thirteen grandchildren.
The complaint alleges that beginning around July 2008, Walter and Jean retained MLCL and Attorney Seich for estate planning services with a focus on minimizing estate taxes while maximizing charitable giving and inheritance for descendants. Over time, Attorney Seich’s role expanded beyond initial engagement letters into handling tax filings, litigation matters related to investments, insurance issues, trust administration advice to various family members including the plaintiffs themselves.
Despite this long-standing relationship—and numerous invoices billed for services—the suit claims Attorney Seich never provided proper engagement letters directly to the plaintiffs nor disclosed inherent conflicts arising from representing multiple family members with potentially differing interests. It is further alleged that he did not obtain informed written consent regarding these conflicts or define the scope of representation with respect to each client.
A central issue raised is Attorney Seich’s drafting of wills for both Walter and Jean which named himself as successor executor—a position allowing him broad discretionary powers over estate assets along with protections from liability typically not afforded attorneys acting solely as legal counsel. The suit contends that these documents were prepared without adequate disclosure about compensation arrangements or potential double-billing—whereby Attorney Seich could charge both statutory fiduciary fees as executor/trustee as well as additional legal fees through MLCL.
Further allegations include claims that Attorney Seich continued recommending himself as successor trustee or fiduciary under new trust amendments even after being aware that both Walter’s and Jean’s mental capacity had significantly declined due to age-related illness by early 2022. The complaint asserts that key amendments—which removed certain beneficiary rights or made it more difficult for heirs to remove him as trustee—were executed at times when at least one grantor was incapacitated or under hospice care.
Another area of dispute involves what plaintiffs describe as a consequential typographical error made by Attorney Seich in drafting a provision governing distributions from one trust (the Jean Irrevocable Trust). According to the filing: “Attorney Seich drafted…includes a glaring consequential typographical error…duplicated sentence…authorized [him]…to distribute all assets held in trust after Walter’s death.” Plaintiffs allege this error led to ambiguity later used by Attorney Seich against their interests while charging additional fees for resolving disputes arising from his own mistake.
The complaint also details an incident where Attorney Seich allegedly had then-incapacitated Jean change ownership on a $1 million life insurance policy so proceeds would go into a trust rather than directly to her daughters—a move which increased taxable assets within Walter’s gross estate upon his death.
In addition to these core issues regarding management of trusts and estates, the lawsuit accuses Attorney Seich of entering into personal business transactions with clients without obtaining required written consent or advising them to seek independent counsel—a practice prohibited under professional conduct rules designed to protect clients from undue influence or self-dealing by attorneys.
The relief sought includes recovery of damages exceeding $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs—reflecting losses allegedly suffered by the plaintiffs individually as well as harms done to various family trusts due to what they characterize as breaches of fiduciary duty, negligence in drafting key documents, failure to disclose conflicts of interest or obtain proper consents before acting in dual roles.
As stated throughout the document: “Attorney Seich never disclosed this…until after Plaintiffs attempted to remove him,” referencing ongoing disputes about removal rights over trusteeship positions he holds across different family entities despite notice given regarding malpractice claims against him.
The case is assigned Judge J. Philip Calabrese under Case No. 1:26-cv-00651 according to court records included within the filing.
Source: 126cv00651_Winkhaus_v_McCarthy_Lebit_Crystal_and_Liffman_Co_LPA_Complaint_Northern_District_Ohio.pdf
