Attorneys who are sued for actions constituting a violation of their professional obligations can use the one year statute of limitations under CCP §340.6 as a defense. Tortious conduct such as conversion isn't subject to the 1 year statute of limitation.
Lee v. Hanley
I. The Trial Court
In Lee v. Hanley, Nancy Lee ("Lee") retained attorney William Hanley ("Hanley') to represent her in a civil litigation matter. In doing so, Lee advanced to Hanley $110,000 to be used for attorney's fees and court costs. The civil suit eventually settled, and Hanley sent Lee a final invoice reflecting that Lee had a credit balance of $46,321.85 remaining on her retainer. However, when Lee later asked Hanley for a refund of the credit balance, Hanley responded that Lee did not have a credit balance and would not …show more content…
IV. Justice Corrigan's Dissent
In its Dissent, Justice Corrigan joined by Justice Chin, did not take issue with the Majority's conclusion that Section 340.6(a) only applies to claims that require proof an attorney violated a professional obligation. Rather, the Minority felt the Majority's opinion ignores the nature of the attorney misconduct, legislative purpose behind Section 340.6(a), and depends upon what information turns-up in discovery and what evidence is introduced at trial. Since (as even the Majority opinion states) Section 340.6(a) was enacted to provide a uniform statute of limitations for actions based on a violation of an attorney's professional obligations-regardless of how the complaint is pled-then the complaint should logically be read to ascertain whether, if taken as true, the allegations would prove the violation of a professional obligation committed during the course of performing professional
Lee v. Hanley
I. The Trial Court
In Lee v. Hanley, Nancy Lee ("Lee") retained attorney William Hanley ("Hanley') to represent her in a civil litigation matter. In doing so, Lee advanced to Hanley $110,000 to be used for attorney's fees and court costs. The civil suit eventually settled, and Hanley sent Lee a final invoice reflecting that Lee had a credit balance of $46,321.85 remaining on her retainer. However, when Lee later asked Hanley for a refund of the credit balance, Hanley responded that Lee did not have a credit balance and would not …show more content…
IV. Justice Corrigan's Dissent
In its Dissent, Justice Corrigan joined by Justice Chin, did not take issue with the Majority's conclusion that Section 340.6(a) only applies to claims that require proof an attorney violated a professional obligation. Rather, the Minority felt the Majority's opinion ignores the nature of the attorney misconduct, legislative purpose behind Section 340.6(a), and depends upon what information turns-up in discovery and what evidence is introduced at trial. Since (as even the Majority opinion states) Section 340.6(a) was enacted to provide a uniform statute of limitations for actions based on a violation of an attorney's professional obligations-regardless of how the complaint is pled-then the complaint should logically be read to ascertain whether, if taken as true, the allegations would prove the violation of a professional obligation committed during the course of performing professional