On July 31, 2019, a client suing an attorney for two different complaints of malpractice, lost one claim and the other survived to be scheduled for a jury trial. It was claimed that the attorney was negligent "during proceedings arising from plaintiff's operation of a biofuel business". The lower court found that this claim was premised on speculative damages and dismissed the claim. On appeal the appellate court noted that no proper determination could be made since plaintiff's legal malpractice attorney neglected to submit an experts report attesting to the alleged consequential damages. The dismissal of that claim was affirmed.
The other claim involved an alleged failure to timely file objections to a proposed accounting in an estate litigation. The attorney had successfully raised a statute of limitations defense but the issue was whether the continuous representation doctrine had tolled the statute. The three year deadline began to run on the last date on which the objections should have been filed and this suit was filed more than three years after that date. To successfully rely on the continuous representation doctrine to extend the time to file suit there must be "clear indicia of an ongoing continuous, developing, and dependent relationship...which often includes an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice." Here the attorney made "several unsuccessful attempts to file objections within the weeks after the deadline...." which may have rendered the action timely. As such the appellate court directed the lower court to hold a hearing on the alleged "unsuccessful attempts to file objections". Leeder v Antonucci, 2019 WL 3438304