Renata owns an importing business. She sought legal advice regarding the possibility of obtaining government approval to enter into a particular contract to purchase widgets from a company in Peru. Because her regular lawyer, a specialist in trade law, was away on vacation, she brought her file to Franz, whom she found in the telephone book. Although Renata did not know it, Franz was not really a lawyer. While he had attended two years of law school, he never graduated and never passed the bar exam. Furthermore, although he is a distinguished-looking 50-year-old, he only recently began to hold himself out as a lawyer. Franz prepared the necessary documents but, because he failed to read the governing statute carefully, he did not instruct Renata to place her corporate seal on them. Renata's application was consequently rejected by the government, and she lost the $75 000 profit that she expected to earn under her contract with the Peruvian company. She has sued Franz, claiming that her loss was caused by his professional negligence. He has responded by arguing that since he was not really a lawyer, he was not really a professional and therefore could not be held to a professional standard of care. He also has argued that even if he can be treated as a professional, he never claimed to have special expertise in the area of trade law and therefore should not be expected to fulfill the standard that would be applied to Renata's regular lawyer. Will either of those arguments succeed?