conform his conduct to the requisite standard of care required by the relationship, and (8) an injury to the plaintiff proximately caused by the breach. Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992, 995 (Ind.1991), reh'g denied. A. Duty Whether the law recognizes any obligation on the part of a particular defendant to conform his conduct to a certain standard for the benefit of the plaintiff, three factors must be balanced: (1) the relationship between the parties; (2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured, and (8) public policy concerns. Id. Thus, our analysis must examine each of these three factors in turn to determine if Quigley owed a duty to the Beckoms. 1. Relationship between Quigley and the Beckoms The heart of the present case concerns attorney Quigley's action 1983) (<HOLDING>). In Walker, attorney Lawson drafted a will for
holding that the governments cooperation with a thirdparty is not sufficient to establish a thirdparty beneficiary relationship holding that the thirdparty beneficiary theory did not apply holding that a contract beneficiary may be liable in restitution where the beneficiary by his conduct induces the conferral of the benefit holding that a duty may be owed to a beneficiary of a consensual relationship akin to that of a thirdparty beneficiary of a contract where the professional has actual knowledge that the services being provided are in part for the benefit of such third persons recognizing common law cause of action as thirdparty beneficiary