Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court probes when malpractice clock starts in disputed-fees trustee suit
Summary
Counsel disputed whether the statute of limitations on a legal-malpractice claim was tolled by continuing representation or whether the client knew at an earlier date that he had appreciable harm; the panel questioned whether a March 2017 injunction and later appellate rulings produced the triggering notice for limitations purposes.
The appeals court heard argument in James G. Gevaris v. Stephen LaFortune (docket 24P322) over whether a legal-malpractice claim was timely. The key contested issue was when the statute of limitations began to run: when the client first received adverse lower-court rulings and was ordered to return trust funds, or later when appellate rulings made clear there was an actionable loss.
Appellant counsel (represented at argument by an attorney who explained the continuing-representation doctrine and the requirement of causation and appreciable harm) argued that although the client knew earlier of the attorney’s mistake, actual…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
