Table of contents:
Statutory Framework
Attorney malpractice statutes of limitations establish time limits for filing lawsuits against attorneys for negligence or misconduct. These statutes aim to protect both attorneys and clients by ensuring that claims are brought promptly while evidence is still available and memories are fresh.
An attorney malpractice claim typically involves four key elements:
- Duty of care: The attorney owed a duty of care to the client.
- Breach of duty: The attorney breached that duty by failing to meet the required standard of care.
- Causation: The attorney’s breach of duty caused the client’s damages.
- Damages: The client suffered actual damages as a result of the attorney’s negligence.
Common Defenses
Common defenses to attorney malpractice claims include:
- Statute of limitations: The claim was not filed within the time period set by law.
- Lack of duty: The attorney did not owe a duty of care to the client.
- No breach of duty: The attorney did not breach the duty of care owed to the client.
- Lack of causation: The attorney’s actions did not cause the client’s damages.
- Comparative negligence: The client’s own negligence contributed to their damages.
Accrual of the Cause of Action
The accrual of a cause of action in attorney malpractice claims is the date when the cause of action first comes into existence. The “discovery rule” is a common law doctrine that delays the accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury and its cause.
There are different methods for determining when a cause of action accrues in attorney malpractice cases. One method is the “continuous representation rule,” which provides that the cause of action accrues when the attorney-client relationship ends. Another method is the “termination of representation rule,” which provides that the cause of action accrues when the attorney withdraws from representation or the client discharges the attorney.
Continuous Representation Rule
Under the continuous representation rule, the cause of action accrues when the attorney-client relationship ends, regardless of when the plaintiff discovers the injury. This rule is based on the idea that the attorney-client relationship is a continuing one, and that the attorney owes a duty of care to the client throughout the course of the relationship.
For example, in Doe v. Roe, the plaintiff hired the defendant attorney to represent her in a personal injury case. The attorney filed a lawsuit on the plaintiff’s behalf, but failed to timely serve the defendant with the complaint. As a result, the lawsuit was dismissed. The plaintiff later hired a new attorney, who discovered the attorney’s error. The plaintiff filed a malpractice action against the defendant attorney, and the court held that the cause of action accrued when the attorney-client relationship ended, not when the plaintiff discovered the attorney’s error.
Termination of Representation Rule
Under the termination of representation rule, the cause of action accrues when the attorney withdraws from representation or the client discharges the attorney. This rule is based on the idea that the attorney-client relationship ends when the attorney withdraws or is discharged, and that the attorney no longer owes a duty of care to the client.
For example, in Smith v. Jones, the plaintiff hired the defendant attorney to represent him in a criminal case. The attorney represented the plaintiff through the trial, but withdrew from representation before the sentencing hearing. The plaintiff was convicted and sentenced to prison. The plaintiff later hired a new attorney, who discovered that the defendant attorney had failed to file a timely appeal. The plaintiff filed a malpractice action against the defendant attorney, and the court held that the cause of action accrued when the attorney withdrew from representation, not when the plaintiff discovered the attorney’s error.
Tolling and Exceptions
The statute of limitations for attorney malpractice claims may be tolled, or extended, in certain circumstances. Tolling occurs when an event or circumstance prevents the plaintiff from filing a lawsuit within the standard limitations period.
One common reason for tolling is fraud or concealment by the attorney. If the attorney actively conceals their negligence or misrepresentation, the statute of limitations may not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the malpractice.
Minority
Minority is another common reason for tolling. In most jurisdictions, the statute of limitations for minors is tolled until they reach the age of majority.
Equitable Tolling
Equitable tolling is a legal doctrine that allows courts to extend the statute of limitations in cases where the plaintiff was prevented from filing a lawsuit due to circumstances beyond their control.
In attorney malpractice cases, equitable tolling may be applied if the plaintiff was prevented from filing a lawsuit due to the attorney’s negligence or misrepresentation.
Examples
- In Smith v. Jones, the plaintiff’s attorney failed to file a medical malpractice lawsuit within the statute of limitations. The court tolled the statute of limitations because the attorney’s negligence prevented the plaintiff from filing a timely lawsuit.
- In Doe v. Roe, the plaintiff was a minor when she was injured by the negligence of her attorney. The court tolled the statute of limitations until the plaintiff reached the age of majority.
Comparative and Contributory Negligence
Comparative and contributory negligence are defenses that can be asserted by the defendant in an attorney malpractice case. Comparative negligence reduces the plaintiff’s recovery in proportion to their own negligence, while contributory negligence bars the plaintiff’s recovery entirely if they are found to be contributorily negligent.
In some jurisdictions, the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the percentage of negligence attributed to them. For example, if the plaintiff is found to be 20% negligent and the defendant is found to be 80% negligent, the plaintiff’s recovery will be reduced by 20%.
In other jurisdictions, the plaintiff’s recovery is barred entirely if they are found to be contributorily negligent. This means that even if the defendant is found to be more negligent than the plaintiff, the plaintiff will not be able to recover any damages.
The application of comparative and contributory negligence defenses can have a significant impact on the plaintiff’s recovery. In cases where the plaintiff is found to be contributorily negligent, they may be barred from recovering any damages at all. Even in cases where the plaintiff is not found to be contributorily negligent, their recovery may be reduced by the percentage of negligence attributed to them.
Statute of Repose
A statute of repose is a law that sets a maximum time limit within which a legal action can be brought, regardless of when the cause of action accrued. This differs from a statute of limitations, which sets a time limit based on when the cause of action accrued. Statutes of repose are designed to provide finality to legal claims and prevent stale claims from being brought.
In the context of attorney malpractice cases, statutes of repose typically set a time limit within which a claim must be brought after the alleged malpractice occurred. The purpose of these statutes is to protect attorneys from being sued years or even decades after the alleged malpractice occurred, when evidence may be lost or memories may have faded. Statutes of repose also provide certainty to attorneys by giving them a clear understanding of the time frame within which they may be held liable for their actions.
Examples
- In the case of Doe v. Roe, the plaintiff alleged that her attorney committed malpractice in 1995. The plaintiff did not file a lawsuit until 2015, more than 20 years after the alleged malpractice occurred. The court dismissed the lawsuit because it was barred by the statute of repose, which set a time limit of 10 years from the date of the alleged malpractice.
- In the case of Jones v. Smith, the plaintiff alleged that her attorney committed malpractice in 2005. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in 2010, within the 5-year statute of limitations. However, the court dismissed the lawsuit because the statute of repose, which set a time limit of 7 years from the date of the alleged malpractice, had expired.
Statutory Damages and Punitive Damages
Statutory damages and punitive damages are two types of damages that may be available to plaintiffs in attorney malpractice cases. Statutory damages are damages that are set by statute, while punitive damages are damages that are awarded to punish the defendant for particularly egregious conduct.
The availability of statutory damages and punitive damages in attorney malpractice cases varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, statutory damages are only available in cases where the attorney’s conduct was particularly egregious, while in other jurisdictions, statutory damages are available in all cases of attorney malpractice. Punitive damages are generally only available in cases where the attorney’s conduct was particularly egregious.
When awarding statutory damages or punitive damages, courts consider a number of factors, including the severity of the attorney’s misconduct, the extent of the plaintiff’s damages, and the defendant’s financial resources.
In some cases, courts have awarded statutory damages or punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. For example, in one case, a court awarded a plaintiff $100,000 in compensatory damages, $50,000 in statutory damages, and $25,000 in punitive damages.
