O'NEILL

O'NEILL v. Tichy

Good Law
19 Cal. App. 4th 114·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 997·25 Cal. Rptr. 2d 162·93 Daily Journal DAR 12630·144 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2835
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 4, 1993A057688California1,951 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haning, J.

Subdivision (a)(2) of section 340.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the statute of limitations for legal malpractice is tolled during the period that the attorney continues to represent the plaintiff regarding the specific subject matter in which the alleged malpractice occurred. In this case we hold this statutory tolling period is unaffected by the plaintiff’s knowledge of the attorney’s wrongful act or omission, as long as the representation continues.

Facts

In 1975 appellants Edwin R. O’Neill et al. retained respondents George J. Tichy II et al. to generally represent them regarding their business operations and specifically to advise them how to reduce labor costs. In 1977 appellants reorganized their operation by closing a slaughterhouse and replacing it the following month with four new, nonunion companies which paid wages below the level previously paid under collective bargaining agreements. As a result, two unions filed claims with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleging that O’Neill engaged in unfair labor practices. In 1982 an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that O’Neill and the four companies had committed unfair labor practices…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.