Pompilio

Pompilio v. Kosmo, Cho & Brown

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 1080·39 Cal. App. 4th 1324·46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 409·95 Daily Journal DAR 14739·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8548
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 2, 1995No. B091868California1,810 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

During arbitration proceedings, plaintiffs and defendants settle their lawsuit. Plaintiffs then renege. At a second arbitration hearing the arbitrator finds the settlement to be valid. Three years later, defendants obtain a judgment confirming the arbitration award which upheld the settlement. Plaintiffs sue the attorneys who negotiated the settlement. Does the statute of limitations for legal malpractice run from the date of settlement or the date judgment was entered confirming the award? Here we hold that plaintiffs’ malpractice action commenced to run when they settled their dispute with defendants.

*1326 Plaintiffs Michael and Annabelle Pompilio appeal a judgment dismissing their legal malpractice action against their former attorneys, Duane Skavdahl and Kosmo, Cho & Brown. We affirm and conclude the Pompilios’ action for legal malpractice is barred by the one-year limitations period of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6.

Facts

On October 6, 1994, plaintiffs Michael and Annabelle Pompilio filed a legal malpractice action against their former attorneys, Duane Skavdahl and Kosmo, Cho & Brown. 2 The Pompilios were dissatisfied with the terms of a 1991 settlement…

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.