|
2186 REVIEW DENIED An attorney who negotiated a sale on behalf of a client and subsequently represented the client in collecting on the note received as consideration for the sale was in a continuing relationship with the client, tolling the statute of limitations on the client's malpractice action against him/her; if representation on the collection occurred while the attorney was a partner in a law firm, the statute of limitations is similarly tolled on the client's action against the firm; but if representation on the collection occurred after the attorney ceased being a partner in the firm to which he belonged when representing the client in connection with negotiation of the sale, the attorney's subsequent representation of the client did not toll the statute of limitations on the client's malpractice claim against that firm.
CROUSE v BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON (Changing Partners) 67 CA4 1509 [See: CCP 340.6; Foxborough v Van Atta 26 CA4 217, T/AT 8/94; Beane v Paulsen 21 CA4 89, T/AT 2/94; O'Neill v Tichy 19 CA4 114, T/AT 12/93]
|
|
|