Foxborough

— Foxborough, a general partnership, appeals after the trial court found that the statute of limitations, Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6, barred Foxborough’s legal malpractice action. Foxborough had sued its former attorney, respondent David Van Atta, alleging that he failed to protect Foxborough’s interests in a condominium development transaction.

Because the alleged malpractice occurred in a transactional setting, this appeal presents a novel context for construing subdivision (a)(1) and (a)(2) of section 340.6, which respectively toll the statute of limitations during the time that “[tjhe plaintiff has not sustained actual injury,” and “[t]he attorney continues to represent the plaintiff regarding the specific subject matter in which the alleged wrongful act or omission occurred . . . .” Thus, we must determine when Foxborough “sustained actual injury” (§ 340.6, subd. (a)(1)) and whether Van Atta, by acting years later as a consultant and expert witness in related litigation, “continue[d] to represent [Foxborough] regarding the specific subject matter in which the alleged wrongful act or omission occurred . . . .” (§ 340.6, subd. (a)(2).)

We conclude that…