Law Practice
Jun. 16, 2006
Legal Malpractice: Court Must Decide for Whom Statute Tolls
In January this year, the California Court of Appeal issued a decision that creates the potential for extended malpractice liability for all law firms and partnerships.
Stephen L. Raucher
Partner, Reuben Raucher & Blum
Email: sraucher@rrbattorneys.com
Stephen practices complex business litigation, with an emphasis on representing policyholders in insurance disputes.
Andrew D. Shupe
In January this year, the California Court of Appeal issued a decision that creates the potential for extended malpractice liability for all law firms and partnerships. In Beal Bank v. Arter & Hadden, 135 Cal.App.4th 643 (2006), review granted (April 19, 2006), the 2nd District Court of Appeal interpreted the continuous-representation provision of Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.6 as tolling the statute of limitations for legal malpractice not just for an attorney who has ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In