Ehrman v. Kaufman, Vidal, Hileman & Ramlow, PC

*526¶23 I believe the Court overlooks critical facts, ignores controlling cases, and essentially adopts the “continuous representation” doctrine we expressly rejected in earlier cases as inconsistent with our statute.

¶24 We reached the opposite conclusion from the Court’s holding today in the very similar case of Peschel v. Jones, 232 Mont. 516, 525-26, 760 P.2d 51, 56-57 (1988), and provided specific guidance about application of the discovery rule. There, the lawyer drafted an agreement for the purpose of resolving financing problems so that construction of the client’s apartment complex could…