Beane

Madeline Tucker brought this malpractice action in April 1991 against her former attorneys, alleging that they allowed her meritorious claim in a federal bankruptcy proceeding to be dismissed for lack of prosecution and that this dismissal had adverse res judicata effects in her related state court action. Defendants John Paulsen and Robert Davis brought a motion for summary judgment premised on two grounds. First, they claimed the statute of limitations (§ 340.6) had expired. Second, they asserted they were released from any liability for malpractice committed against the plaintiff when they ceased practicing with their former partner. The trial court granted their motion. Finding neither of these arguments meritorious, we shall reverse and remand.

Scope of Review

Two factors simplify our review of this matter. With respect to the framework of legal principles that determines which facts are material in the context of this proceeding (Andalon v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 600, 604-605 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 899 ]), the nature of the grounds for the defendants’ summary judgment motion does not implicate the substantive law undergirding the allegations of the…