Does a general release specifically exclude any malpractice claims against the attorney from the general release?

The circumstances are unlike those in Winet v. Price, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at 1159 where the parties (attorney and client) "did specifically except" from their general release "any claims connected with 'any act or omission committed or omitted relating to' " a limited partnership. (Id. at p. 1164.) Addressing the client's later claim that their release did not include malpractice claims against the attorney, and reviewing the circumstances surrounding the making of their agreement (rejecting the client's effort to introduce parol evidence as to his uncommunicated subjective intent), this court held the parties intended their release to encompass all known and unknown claims. (Id. at pp. 1166-1167.) Winet pointed out the significance of the fact the client was represented by counsel, aware of possible malpractice claims against the attorney, and still waived Civil Code section 1542, expressly assuming the risk of unknown claims. (Id. at p. 1168.) It was deemed "significant that the parties were able to, and did, fashion language memorializing their agreement to preserve identified claims from the operation of the release when such was their intention . . . ." (Ibid.) Unlike Winet, there is no indication here that the parties carved out any issue or dispute from their settlement agreement and release of all claims between them.