With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Merrill & Son, Inc. v. Carter (1985), 108 Idaho 749, 754-755, 702 P.2d 787. {¶ 47} Defendants did not have a duty, and therefore did not breach a duty, to protect plaintiff against EAI of NC’s wrongful treatment of plaintiff as an unsecured creditor. See 2175 Lemoine Ave. Corp. v. Finco, Inc. (1994), 272 N.J.Super. 478, 485, 640 A.2d 346, 350 (“A lawyer, without express agreement, is not an insurer. * * * He is not answerable for an error of judgment in the conduct of a case or for every mistake which may occur in practice. He does, however, undertake in the practice of his profession of the law that he is possessed of that reasonable knowledge and skill ordinarily possessed by other members of his profession.”). See, also, Simko v. Blake (1995), 448 Mich. 648, 656-658, 532 N.W.2d 842 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 48} Rather, according to plaintiff,

A: holding that the more transformative the new work the more likely the use of the old work is a fair one
B: holding that employer did not have duty to protect allegedly intoxicated employee from risk that employee would have automobile accident after leaving work
C: holding an attorney does not have a duty to insure or guarantee that the most favorable outcome possible and because no amount of work can guarantee a favorable result attorneys would never know when the work they do is sufficiently more than adequate to be enough to protect not only their clients from error but themselves from liability
D: recognizing that it is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way leaving the court to do counsels work
C.