[Racer]

In my limited experience, the will itself is merely a by-product of the more valuable will-making process -- it's easy enough to read through a will and say "I could have done that" without recognizing everything that was ruled out.

One person brought in their own will and asked me to simply review it and notarize it, but I refused. The important part of doing a will is not the end product -- it is the information interview, when the entire estate is reviewed, and there is opportunity to ask the questions about the things that might derail an estate down the road. Not worth the risk of having them leave and tell their family that my firm okayed it.

One of the benefits of doing a will with a lawyer is that it theoretically transfers the risk of preparing the will negligently. If the lawyer screws up the will (which is surprisingly easy to do with certain types of estates, such as farmers who are land-rich and cash-poor), you can make a claim against the lawyer. All lawyers carry insurance for this sort of thing.

Another benefit to doing a will with a lawyer is that it decreases the possibility of the will being overturned because of a technicality related to improper execution -- the testator was looking the other way at the time that one of the witnesses signed, etc. Ridiculous. But my province has deeply flawed wills legislation. Maybe Ontario's act makes more sense.

I bought one of those will kits a few years ago, and it was full of interesting advice and helpful tips. Worth the money (only $30) just for the way that it made me think about wills in a different way.

 

[Racer]

The answer to your question is yes. Whenever the negligent act took place, as long as he was insured (and all practicing lawyers are insured as a req of their law society or governing body), there is a possibility of making a claim. The rule of thumb is that you have two years from the date of the wrong to make a legal claim. With wills, that 2-year deadline is calculated in a different way -- such as from the date the wrong was discoverable by the beneficiaries, or something like that.

In your case it doesn't seem likely that it was the lawyer who made an error. It would be negligent not to ask someone how many children they had -- but if they did ask and the testator said "2", then the lawyer can't be faulted for not questioning that. Different story if she said "2 that I keep in touch with". The current lawyer you have may not want to incur the extra fees it will take to chase down what is likely a dead end. It doesn't hurt to ask your current lawyer what their reasoning is for not checking on that.

Sorry to hear of your situation and best of luck.