did not owe a duty of care to someone who purchased stock from a client whom the attorney had negligently advised about the sale. The attorney had not communicated the advice to the stock purchaser and thus did not owe the purchaser a duty of care. The court contrasted the situation with Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown, & Baerwitz, 57 Cal.App.3d 104, 128 Cal.Rptr. 901 (1976), where the attorney’s opinion letter was communicated directly to the plaintiff so that there could be a duty of care. The facts alleged in the complaint raise a situation more similar to Roberts. The attorney defendants are alleged to have drafted the prospectus which was relied on by the investors. In such a case, there would be a duty of care. See Lubin v. Sybedon Corp., 688 F.Supp. 1425, 1455 (S.D.Cal.1988) (<HOLDING>) Thus, the 18th claim will not be dismissed. E.
holding that because  3c11 applies to attempts to obstruct justice it is not essential that the threat be communicated to the target holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendants reasons for not hiring the plaintiff were pretext because the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence other than her own subjective testimony that she was more qualified for the job than the selectee holding that to be actionable the words must be communicated or published to someone other than the plaintiff holding that attorneys representations communicated to plaintiff were more similar to roberts than goodman