Kachlon v. Spielfogel
Beginning in 2002, three attorneys in succession handled legal matters for plaintiffs that in 2005 resulted in a substantial judgment being entered against them. Plaintiffs filed this legal malpractice action against the attorneys in 2005, alleging the attorneys breached their professional duties. The first attorney, whose representation of plaintiffs had ended in 2003, moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was time barred as to him. The trial court granted the motion, concluding the action was time barred because no triable issue existed as to whether (1) plaintiffs knew or should have known of the attorney’s negligence or (2) suffered injury more than one year before they filed their malpractice complaint. The court also concluded the first attorney’s negligence could not have proximately caused plaintiffs’ damages because the negligence of the second and third attorneys constituted an intervening, superseding cause of plaintiffs’ damages.
We conclude no evidence indicates when plaintiffs sustained actual injury, and no evidence indicates the intervening conduct of the second and third attorneys superseded that of the first attorney. Defendant is therefore not entitled to summary judgment.
Comments on Kachlon v. Spielfogel