Crouse

Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 983·67 Cal. App. 4th 1509·80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 94·98 Daily Journal DAR 12051·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8691
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 25, 1998D025143, D026136California14,589 words

Opinion

Opinion

McDonald, J.

In these consolidated appeals we examine the application of the legal malpractice statute of limitations continuing-representation tolling provision to a legal malpractice action against a law firm, a former partner of the law firm who represented the client while a partner of the law firm and after becoming a partner in a new firm, and the new firm. We also consider (1) the application of the statute of limitations to cross-complaints for equitable indemnity filed by the attorney and his new firm against his former firm, (2) the limitations on equitable indemnity rights of the attorney and his new firm against the former firm and (3) the doctrines of implied contractual duty, fiduciary duty and statutory duty owed by a law firm to its members.

Appellants Linda F. Crouse and Linda F. Crouse Trust (together Crouse) filed this legal malpractice action against David Boatwright (Boatwright), an attorney who had represented her in a business transaction, and the two law firms in which Boatwright practiced during the times of the alleged acts of malpractice. Prior to 1990 Boatwright was an associate and partner in Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (BPH). Between March 1990 and…

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.