In Dykes v. Gayton (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 395, 744 N.E.2d 199, the Court found the intended beneficiaries of a will who filed a malpractice action against the drafting attorney lacked privity to bring the action. Id. However, the Court noted that the intended beneficiaries raised a persuasive public policy argument that may be appropriate for review by the state's highest court. Id. Other appellate courts are in agreement with this decision in Lutz and cite Simon as authority, although at least one court has expressed similar reservations as did this court in Dykes. See, e.g., Schlegel v. Gindlesberger, Holmes App. No. 05 CA 10, 2006 Ohio 6916 (finding that a beneficiary or purported beneficiary of a will lacks privity in an action for legal malpractice against attorney who drafted a will and survivorship deed on behalf of the decedent, but inviting the Ohio Supreme Court to revisit this issue because intended beneficiaries should have a remedy for damages suffered against attorney who negligently drafts a will);