Ethics/Professional Responsibility,
Law Practice
Apr. 26, 2014
Malicious prosecution case creates conflict in case law
A court found that the applicable statute of limitations in malicious prosecution cases is not the legal malpractice statute of limitations.
Kenneth C. Feldman
Partner
Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Certified Specialist in Legal Malpractice
633 W 5th St Ste 4000
Los Angeles , CA 90071
Phone: (213) 250-1800
Fax: (213) 250-7900
Email: Ken.Feldman@lewisbrisbois.com
Loyola Law School
Kenneth is firm-wide chair of the legal malpractice defense group at Lewis Brisbois. He is a certified specialist, legal malpractice law, State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization, and is vice chair of the State Bar Legal Malpractice Law Advisory Commission. Mr. Feldman is the author of "California Legal Malpractice & Malicious Prosecution Liability Handbook."
Last week, the 2nd District Court of Appeal, Division 3, issued Roger Cleveland Golf Company Inc. v. Krane & Smith APC, 2014 DJDAR 4715. The case analyzed the applicable statute of limitations and tolling periods in a malicious prosecution cause of action against attorneys and found that Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.6 - the legal malpractice statute of limitations - did not apply, but held the plaintiff did not show minimal merit as to the malice element of the tort. Accordin...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In