Strine v. Kingsbaker

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the statute of limitations begins to run upon the latter of the client’s discovery of the need to pursue a possible remedy against his attorney or termination of the attorney-client relationship
• holding the cause of action accrues either when the client discovers or should have discovered, or when the attomey/client relationship for that matter terminates, whichever occurs later
• relying on Frysinger to hold that statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims begin to run after the conclusion of “legal representation regarding a particular undertaking or transaction”
• noting concern that \[s]trict adherence to the discovery rule ... potentially encourages an unscrupulous attorney to conceal his or her malpractice until that time when the statute of limitations has run its course.\
• asking whether reasonable person be on notice of need for further inquiry
• “Generally, the determination of whether an attorney-client relationship has ended is a factual question to be resolved by the trier of fact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).