Rose

In Wiley v. County of San Diego (1998) 19 Cal.4th 532 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 , 966 P.2d 983 ] (Wiley), the California Supreme Court held that when a former criminal defendant sues his or her attorney for legal malpractice (“criminal malpractice”), the former client’s “actual innocence [of the underlying criminal charge] is a necessary element of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” (Id. at p. 545.)

In Coscia v. McKenna & Cueno (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1194 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 471 , 25 P.3d 670 ] (Coscia), the California Supreme Court reaffirmed Wiley, *646 supra, 19 Cal.4th 532 , and then held that the client’s innocence must be shown by postconviction exoneration in the form of a final judicial disposition of the criminal case. (Coscia, supra, at pp. 1197-1198, 1199-1205 .) Coscia also reaffirmed prior case law holding that the limitations period begins to run, subject to tolling, on the date the attorney committed an act or omission amounting to professional negligence—which would necessarily occur during the attorney’s representation of the client. (Id. at p. 1210.) Acknowledging that the statute of limitations on the legal malpractice action will in most cases expire before the…