Neel

Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand

Good Law
1971 Cal. LEXIS 390·6 Cal. 3d 176·98 Cal. Rptr. 837·491 P.2d 421
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 2, 1971L. A. No. 29865California7,945 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Tobriner, J.

In this suit for legal malpractice plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment against them grounded upon the two-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 339. That judgment rests upon the rule that a cause of action for malpractice by an attorney arises, and the limitation period commences, at the time of the negligent act. In this case, and in the companion case of Budd v. Nixen, post, page 195 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 491 P.2d 433 ], we undertake to review this rule. Upon reconsideration, we find that the rule as to legal malpractice contrasts with the rule as to accrual of causes of action against practitioners in all other professions; it ignores the right of the client to rely upon the superior skill and knowledge of the attorney; it denigrates the duty of the attorney to make full and fair disclosure to the client; it negates the fiduciary character of the attorney-client relationship. We conclude that the statute of limitations for legal malpractice, as for all professional malpractice, should be tolled until the client discovers, or should discover, his cause of action.

On August 13, 1968, plaintiffs filed their complaint, alleging that in 1961…

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.