In Fox v. Pollack (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 954, the court concluded an attorney owed no duty to offer advice to an unrepresented party about a real estate exchange transaction in which the attorney represented another, "in the absence of contrary representations by the attorney." (Fox v. Pollack, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d at p. 957.) "An attorney has no duty to protect the interests of an adverse party for the obvious reasons that the adverse party is not the intended beneficiary of the attorney's services, and that the attorney's undivided loyalty belongs to the client. The same principles apply to transactions where the nonclients deal at arm's length with the attorney's clients." (Id. at p. 961)