the interests of their future unascertained clients. It would be a short step from the majority’s grant of third-party standing in this case to a holding that lawyers generally have standing to bring in court the claims of future unas-certained clients. In many circumstances a lawyer could demonstrate Article III injury in fact with regard to such claims. For instance, a workers compensation attorney could show that the attorney’s livelihood will be adversely affected by the implementation of a new regulation curtailing workers compensation benefits. An attorney who specializes in medical malpractice plaintiffs’ cases could show that the attorney’s livelihood will be adversely affected by a tort reform statute. An attorney who specializes in Social Security cases could th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). III. The Three Part Test Used in Exceptional
holding that legal services attorney lacked standing to challenge state court judges alleged retaliation against clients represented by legal services for using legal services relying upon article iii and younger comity holding that attorney who knowingly assisted enterprise in execution of fraudulent scheme by providing legal services and advice could not be held liable under  1962c because his role was at all times limited to the provision of legal services and did not extend to operation or management of enterprise holding that negligence on the part of a legal secretary is imputed to the supervising attorney and the statute of limitations for professional services applies to both recognizing that generally services that benefit debtor are services that facilitate completion of a case holding that attorney who simply provided legal services to corporation did not participate in operation or management of enterprise regardless of whether he performed those services well or poorly properly or improperly