It follows that, under the plain language of the Contract, Browne & Price represented Harrell in the transaction. See Garrett , 252 Ga. App. at 51 (2), 556 S.E.2d 140 ("A closing attorney has a fiduciary relationship as agent with his client."); see also Howard v. Sellers & Warren, P. C. , 309 Ga. App. 302, 305 (1), n. 1, 709 S.E.2d 585 (2011) (physical precedent only) (rejecting claim of attorney-client relationship in view of disclaimer of representation); compare Wright v. Cook , 252 Ga. App. 759, 760, 556 S.E.2d 146 (2001) (finding issue of fact as to attorney-client relationship in absence of a disclaimer of representation provision). Furthermore, Innovative has cited nothing from the record even suggesting it believed that Browne & Price was its attorney.
In addition, other courts have held attorneys liable to non-clients in situations other than those involving opinion letters. See e.g., Wright v. Cook, 252 Ga.App. 759, 556 S.E.2d 146, 148 (2001) (genuine issue existed as to whether attorney voluntarily undertook to correct defect in title, and whether purchasers relied on this promise to their detriment); LaBracio Family P'ship v. 1239 Roosevelt Ave., Inc., 340 N.J.Super. 155, 773 A.2d 1209, 1213-14 (App.Div. 2001) (purchasers' second attorney assumed duty to vendors to record mortgage and was liable for damages for failing to do so); Town Line Plaza Assocs. v. Contemporary Props., Ltd., 223 A.D.2d 420, 636 N.Y.S.2d 57, 58 (App.Div. 1996) (memorandum decision) (one general partner in limited partnership could bring legal malpractice action against attorney retained by other general partner who filed bankruptcy petition, which accelerated personal liability of non-client general partner). The Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers section 15 (2000) sets forth suggested standards for the duty of care a lawyer owes to a prospective client.