With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or absence thereof, in determining Gene's testamentary intent regarding the disposal of his estate. Thus, duty being the threshold requirement for a negligence claim, the Beckoms must first prove the existence of a relationship with Quigley. See Hacker v. Holland, 570 N.E.2d 951, 955 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), reh'g denied. This relationship need not be express; it may be implied from the conduct of the parties. Id. However, unlike the Beckoms, in the context of a will, we find Walker v. Lawson, 526 N.E.2d 968 (Ind.1988) to be controlling. In Walker, our supreme court clearly held that the breach of an attorney in drafting a will for a client can become the basis for a claim by a known beneficiary who suffers injury as a consequence of that breach. Id. at 970; see also Webb, 575 N.E.2d at 996 (<HOLDING>); Essex v. Ryon, 446 N.E.2d 368, 374

A: holding that an attorney owes a fiduciary duty to persons though not strictly clients who he knows or should know rely on him in his professional capacity
B: holding professional malpractice claim not contractual
C: holding that as a general matter membership or shareholder status in a professional corporation does not shield an attorney from individual liability for his own mistakes or professional misdeeds
D: holding that a professional owes no duty to third persons unless the professional had actual knowledge that those persons would rely on his rendering of professional services
D.