Opinion ID: 1163359
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Foreseeability of injury weighed against social utility.

Text: Here, a likelihood existed that the Bank would suffer injury if counsel's opinions proved incorrect. Indeed, the bank's injury has manifested itself in this lawsuit. Foreseeability is not, however, the sole test for imposing a duty. See Observatory Corp., 780 P.2d at 468. The social utility of counsel's conduct must be weighed. In my view the policies previously articulated to reject imposition of a duty relate to the social utility of counsel's conduct. The majority's statement that the business deal between petitioners [counsel] and respondent [Bank] was not an adversarial one, but one in which respondent relied on petitioners' representations, maj. op. at 235, does not alter the fact that here counsel at all times represented the Town and the Authority, and owed the highest duty of loyalty to these clients, not to the Bank.