In Osornio v. Weingarten (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 304, the Court recognized the right of an intended beneficiary, who was the care custodian of the testator, a dependent adult, to pursue a legal malpractice action against the attorney who drafted the testator's will naming her as executor and sole beneficiary. The plaintiff had alleged the lawyer was negligent in failing to advise the testator that his intended beneficiary was a presumptively disqualified donee under Probate Code section 21350, subdivision (a)(6), and in failing to take appropriate measures to ensure the testator's wishes were carried out by referring her to counsel to obtain a certificate of independent review under Probate Code section 21351, subdivision (b). (Osornio, at pp. 312-313, 329.) After a comprehensive review of California decisions considering legal malpractice claims by nonclients and balancing the Biakanja/Lucas factors, the Court of Appeal held, "The case before us is similar to other cases in which courts have imposed a duty of care upon attorneys where beneficiaries are deprived of intended transfers of property as a result of failed wills or trusts." (Id. at p. 332.) With respect to the potential burden on the profession, the court explained: "Imposing liability in this instance would not compromise the attorney's duty of undivided loyalty to the testator. The attorney's duty here was to take appropriate action to carry out the testator's wishes--that were expressed and formalized in her signed will--that her intended beneficiary, Osornio, inherit her entire estate." (Id. at p. 336.)The Osornio court emphasized this difference between the failed bequest in the case before it and the frustration of the potential beneficiary's expectations in Radovich v. Locke-Paddon: "In that instance, there was no plain expression of the testator's intention to benefit the plaintiff ... . In contrast, here we have a clear expression of the testator's intention that Osornio be her sole beneficiary under the signed 2001 Will." (Osornio, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 336.) That is, to hold an attorney owed a duty of care not only to his or her testator client but also to an intended beneficiary, the testator's intent must be "expressed and formalized in a signed will." (Ibid.)