In Janik v. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 930, the issue was whether attorneys for the plaintiff class owed class members a duty of care to consider and protect their interests pertaining to any claims they may have beyond the claims specified in the class certification order pertaining to unpaid overtime wages due under the Labor Code. (Id. at pp. 936-937.) The court analogized a class certification order to a retainer agreement and rejected the defendants' "broad assertion that 'an attorney cannot be sued in malpractice for failing to raise claims beyond the scope of a retainer agreement.' " (Id. at p. 940.) The court held that while the scope of the attorney-client relationship may be limited by the retainer agreement, "an attorney who undertakes one matter on behalf of a client owes that client the duty to at least consider and advise the client if there are apparent related matters that the client is overlooking and that should be pursued to avoid prejudicing the client's interests." (Ibid.) The Janik court concluded that "a cause of action under the UCL unfair competition law would have been based on precisely the same practice, and subject to much the same legal analysis, as the certified cause of action under the Labor Code. ... Class counsel therefore were obliged to consider the advantages and disadvantages to the class of seeking to add a UCL cause of action to their complaint, to bring these considerations to the attention of the class representatives, and to take or recommend such action ... ." (Janik, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at pp. 942-943.)