Legal Opinion
R.D.H. Communications, Ltd. v. Winston
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided September 18, 1997No. 96-CV-143PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GALLAGHER, Senior Judge:
In this legal malpractice action, the clients (appellants) argue we should adopt the continuous representation rule in relation to the statute of limitations. Under such a rule, the statute of limitations on their claim would begin to run on the date their attorney (ap-pellee) ceased to represent them in the specific matter in which he allegedly committed malpractice. We hereby adopt the continuous representation rule and, therefore, reverse and remand.
I
Appellee attorney James L. Winston represented appellant R.D.H. Communications, Ltd. in its effort to build a new FM…
2Cases cited60 opinions
- Chase Securities Corp. v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District TerminalSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Lima v. SchmidtSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1992
- Colbert v. Georgetown UniversityDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- Greene v. GreeneNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Beard v. Edmondson and GallagherDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
- Ray v. QueenDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
- Wagner v. SellingerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
- Hillbroom v. Pricewaterhousecoopers LLPDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011
- Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.