In Richard B. LeVine, Inc. v. Higashi (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 566, an accountant was hired by a partnership to provide accounting services, which included calculation of each partner's share of partnership profits. (Id. at pp. 570-571.) The partnership notified the accountant that the partnership agreed to a change in the method of allocating partner income. (Ibid.) Before preparing a partner's K-1 schedule, the accountant confirmed and then followed the partnership's instructions, altering the methodology in calculating profits. (Ibid.) In the partner's suit against the accountant for professional negligence, the court held that the accountant hired by the partnership to allocate profits under the partnership's instructions did not owe a duty to the individual partner. (Id. at p. 582.) The court adhered to Bily's instructions, noting that "'in applying the Biakanja factors citation, we are necessarily required to make pragmatic assessments of the consequences of recognizing and enforcing particular legal duties.'" (Id. at p. 581.) In assessing the extension of a duty, the LeVine court primarily considered the first three Biakanja factors: " 'extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff' "; the " 'foreseeability of harm' to plaintiff"; and " 'the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury.' " (LeVine, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at pp. 581, 582.) It concluded that a duty should not be imposed because it was not foreseeable that the partner would be harmed or affected since the partnership hired the accountant to make the calculation as instructed by the partnership. The accountant had no basis to believe the plaintiff had not agreed with or known about the change in the calculation, and there was no evidence of miscalculation. (Id. at p. 582.) Even though the accountant prepared the partner's K-1 and knew the function of that schedule, the transaction cannot be described as being done for the benefit of the individual partner. (Ibid.)