1. If the children had suffered no harm as a result of the attorney’s malpractice, would the outcome of this case have been different? Why or why not?
2. Why did the court affirm the dismissal of Guido’s individual claim but not the claims that she had brought on behalf of the children?
3. If one of the children had not been a minor at the time of the father’s death, the court would have dismissed his or her claims against Stern, even though he or she was an intended beneficiary. Is it fair for the law to treat minors differently than other children with regards to a statute of limitations? Why or why not?
4. How might Stern, or anyone in a similar position, have avoided the negative result in this case?