CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Procedure Before Trial/Hearing
......Torts
.........Malpractice
11 Cards On This Topic:

Statute of limitations on malpractice actions.

If attorney's actions about continued representation are equivocal, statute of limitations may not have begun to run.

Attorneys have a duty to advise clients of the potential risks of filing an unmeritorious lawsuit.

If the underlying suit on which the lawyers worked lacked merit, then their alleged malpractice could not have had an impact, because the client would have lost anyway.

Injury for purposes of PMA occurs when a provision is not enforced.

In order to recover in a malpractice action, P must establish that but for D's alleged negligence, P would have obtained a more favorable result–speculation is not sufficient.

Formally substituting out does not start the statute of limitations running if the attorney continues to provide legal services.

One year statute of limitations for legal malpractice claim ran from when client learned underlying default judgment was void.

Family established through E's testimony Ds' negligence was a substantial factor in causing W, with long family history of breast cancer, to die from it 10 years earlier than she would have with timely diagnosis and treatment.

Where P's attys told her to accept partner's settlement offers because she could lose putative spouse case and take nothing, they were not liable for damages caused by her failure to follow their advice.

SJ properly granted where P did not produce evidence to justify a finding of triable issues of fact about whether, without any legal malpractice occurring, he would have received a more favorable settlement or outcome at trial.