Dapeer

I. Introduction

Appellant and plaintiff Leasequip, Inc., a California Corporation, formerly known as Prudential Capital Corporation (Leasequip), appeals from an order of dismissal entered in favor of respondents and defendants Philip D. Dapeer, and Dapeer & Kirsch, a law corporation, a California corporation, formerly known as George & Dapeer, a law corporation (collectively referred to as Dapeer), upon sustaining Dapeer’s demurrer without leave to amend.

In the published portions of this opinion (pts. I., II., III., IV. A., B., C., V., and VI.) we answer “yes” to the following question: Is an attorney equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense in a legal malpractice lawsuit when the attorney advises the corporate client that the failure to comply with required corporate formalities will have no negative impact, the corporate client follows the attorney’s advice and does not comply with required corporate formalities, and the statute of limitations expires because the corporation fails to comply with corporate formalities?

II. Factual and Procedural Background

A. The underlying facts.

Leasequip was in the business of equipment leasing and…