Hanley

Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6, subdivision (a) (hereafter section 340.6(a)) provides: “An action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other than for actual fraud, arising in the performance of professional services shall be commenced within one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission . . . .” We granted review to decide whether an attorney’s refusal to return a former client’s money after the client terminated the representation was “a wrongful act or omission . . . arising in the performance of professional services” under section 340.6(a). We hold that section 340.6(a) applies to a claim when the merits of the claim will necessarily depend on proof that an attorney violated a professional obligation — that is, an obligation the attorney has by virtue of being an attorney — in the course of providing professional services. Such claims brought more than one year after the plaintiff discovers or through reasonable diligence should have discovered the facts underlying the claim are time-barred by section 340.6(a) unless the plaintiff…

Dissenting. — In nay view, the applicability of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 1 is largely resolved by the language of the statute, which the majority discusses only sparingly.

Section 340.6 states, in relevant part: “An action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other than for actual fraud, arising in the performance of professional services shall be commenced within one year” after the plaintiff’s discovery of the wrongful act or four years after the date of the wrongful act. (Id., subd. (a).) “[A]rising in the performance of professional services” modifies “wrongful act or omission,” describing the type of conduct that triggers the statute. This court has construed similar language in the anti-SLAPP 2 statute. Section 425.16 authorizes a motion to strike for “[a] cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech . . . .” (Id., subd. (b)(1).) We explained that “arising from” in section 425.16 means that the cause of action must be based on conduct in furtherance of the defendant’s right of petition or free speech. (City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 78 [ 124…

Filed 8/20/

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

NANCY F. LEE, )

) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) S220775 v. ) ) Ct.App. 4/3 G048501

WILLIAM B. HANLEY, )

) Orange County Defendant and Respondent. ) Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00532352 ____________________________________)

Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6, subdivision (a) (hereafter section 340.6(a)) provides: ―An action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other than for actual fraud, arising in the performance of professional services shall be commenced within one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission . . . .‖ We granted review to decide whether an attorney‘s refusal to return a former client‘s money after the client terminated the representation was ―a wrongful act or omission . . . arising in the performance of professional services‖ under section 340.6(a). We hold that section 340.6(a) applies to a claim when the merits of the claim will necessarily…