Another Tricky Statute Of Limitations Issue In Legal Malpractice Case Against Lawyer.

Lawyer successfully obtained a default judgment, but failed to successfully enforce it. When he was sued for legal malpractice, the trial court sustained the lawyer’s demurrer without leave to amend on the issue of the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs in the malpractice action argued the lawyer’s acts or omissions may have been harmless if it turned out there was nothing available to levy upon, so the statute of limitations was tolled while they performed necessary discovery to find out the extent of the damages caused by the lawyer’s acts or omissions. The appellate court quoted the applicable statute of limitations, Civ.Proc. §340.6, subdivision (a), which states the action had to be filed within one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission, or four years from the date of the wrongful act or omission, whichever occurs first, but in no event shall the time exceed four years except that the period shall be tolled if the plaintiff has not sustained actual injury.  Plaintiffs here clearly filed within the four year requirement.  The Court of appealed affirmed the trial court’s sustaining of the demurrer without leave to amend, noting that by failing to promptly and competently pursue enforcement of the judgment in the underlying action, the lawyer caused “actual injury.” Croucier v. Chavos (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3;  July 18, 2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1138.