The legal malpractice law review blog is reporting on two cases that illustrate two very different approaches to the issue of the application of a statute of limitation in a legal malpractice action.
In Laclette v. Galindo, 184 Cal. App. 4th 919 (2010), the court held that the continuous representation doctrine will toll the statute of limitations in a malpractice action for the period of time the attorney is listed as counsel of record-- even where no active representation is undertaken. (See here.)
Meanwhile, in Bennett v. Hill-Boren, P.C., 52 So. 3d 364 (Miss. 2011), the court held that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the client reasonably should have known that the lawyer was negligent. (See here.)
No comments:
Post a Comment