raise an issue of whether Erskine owed a duty of care to Barnard who was not his client. It is generally recognized that “an attorney owes a duty to non-clients who the attorney knows will rely on the services rendered.” McCarthy v. Landry, 42 Mass.App.Ct. 488, 490 (1997), quoting Robertson v. Gaston Snow & Ely Bartlett, 404 Mass. 515, 524, cert. denied 493 U.S. 894 (1989). No duty of reasonable care will be imposed, however, “if such an independent duty would potentially conflict with the duty the attorney owes to his or her client.” Lamare v. Basbanes, 418 Mass. 274, 276 (1994). In the circumstances of this case, I conclude that to hold Erskine to a duty of care to Barnard would be to create a conflict in the duty he owed to Torrey. See Symmons v. O’Keeffe, 419 Mass. 288, 300 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Although the conveyance in the present case
holding that real estate agents owe their  clients a duty of loyalty holding that payments made to a debtor from inter vivos trusts within 180 days of filing the petition are not interests by way of bequest devise or inheritance and are not part of the bankruptcy estate recognizing that an attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client holding that in preparing an estate plan and distributing property either through a will or through inter vivos trusts attorneys can have only one client to whom they owe a duty of undivided loyalty holding that inter vivos trusts are not considered interest obtained by bequest devise or inheritance