Legal Opinion
Beal Bank, SSB v. Arter & Hadden, LLP
California Supreme Court
Decided September 27, 2007No. S141131PublishedCited by 61 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WERDEGAR, J.
Under California law, the statute of limitations for attorney malpractice claims arising from a given matter is tolled for the duration of the attorney’s representation of the client in that matter. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6, subd. (a)(2).) When an attorney leaves a firm and takes a client with him or her, does the tolling in ongoing matters continue for claims against the former firm and partners? We conclude it does not and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
Factual and Procedural Background
In 1996, plaintiff Beal Bank, SSB (Beal Bank) acquired certain loans from…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Elsner v. UvegesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Laird v. BlackerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2013
- McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- Lee v. HanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
- Olson v. Automobile Club of Southern CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.