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
holding professional malpractice claim not contractual 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 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 holding a business owes a duty to protect invitees from reasonably foreseeable harm by third persons 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