Kronenberger Burgoyne, LLP, was a law firm with two equity partners who agreed to equal ownership as of 2009. Before 2009, Kronenberger had owned a majority interest in the firm, and when, in 2011, the partners were not working well together, he decided to expel Burgoyne from their partnership. On October 28, 2011, Kronenberger emailed Burgoyne a termination notice, purporting to take effect immediately. The partnership agreement stipulated that, upon expulsion, Burgoyne was entitled to a payout based on his ownership stake. A month after Burgoyne’s expulsion from the firm, Kronenberger Rosenfeld hired Monique Tiger and Calegari & Morris to, among other tasks, handle Burgoyne’s payout. In preparing her payout calculation, Tiger communicated with several people at Kronenberger Rosenfeld, but not with Burgoyne. For example, on December 23, 2011, she sent an email to Kronenberger and one of his employees stating that she had calculated taxable income through October 31, including “a split between Karl and Hank based on [a] 55:45 ratio.” Kronenberger responded by affirming the 55:45 split. Tiger did not know, as she was preparing her payout calculations, that Burgoyne disputed the “55:45” split and thought it should be “50:50.” She had never spoken with him, and neither she nor Calegari &

Morris ever considered Burgoyne a client. Burgoyne argued that Tiger’s calculations were fundamentally flawed and filed a complaint against Tiger alleging professional negligence as well as breach of the contract with the law firm to which Burgoyne was a third-party beneficiary. How do you think the court ruled? Does Tiger owe a duty to Burgoyne?