The court held that a party who is not an express client can sue a lawyer for legal malpractice in a business transaction from which the party expected to benefit only if the party was a direct and intended beneficiary of the lawyer's services or, in other words, if the benefit to that party is a central purpose of the transaction and the lawyer is aware of the client's intent to benefit that party. The court found no such evidence here. The court also held that a party did not have an implied contractual attorney-client relationship with a lawyer unless the lawyer is aware of that party's identity, the party communicates with the lawyer and the lawyer is on notice that the lawyer is expected to represent that party. The court again found no such evidence here.