PA: When the Statute Tolls You're Out of Luck!

Posted on January 7, 2011 by Ben Wasserman

Edwards v. Thorpe, 876 F. Supp. 693 (E.D. Pa. 1995).

PA: Underlying FBI investigation

Student Contributor: Laura Binski

Facts: Mr. Edwards (the client) was taken hostage in a robbery attempt of the bank where he worked as an assistant manager. After the event, Mr. Edwards sought legal counsel from Mr. Thorpe (the lawyer). In March of 1989, the lawyer sent a letter to the client’s boss stating: “I am Causley Edwards’ attorney and I have been informed that the FBI considers him a suspect in a recent robbery attempt…” The client claims that the lawyer had no reason to believe the FBI has listed him as a suspect. As a result of the letter, the client was placed on suspension without pay from his job at the bank until the FBI investigation cleared the client’s name or he was prosecuted and acquitted. The client was not exonerated until five years later, in April of 1994. The client filed a suit against the lawyer in October of 1994 for legal malpractice, breach of contract, and defamation.

Issue: Should the client’s claims be subject to Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations? Does the statute of limitations begin to run at the time the alleged breach of fiduciary duty occurs or, as the client claims, when he is harmed?

Ruling:  The client’s claim will be subject to the two-year statute of limitations. Thus, the claim is barred because the complaint was not filed until five years after the alleged breach of fiduciary duty – when the lawyer sent the letter to the bank. The client cannot claim that he did not discover the letter, or the suspension it caused until after the FBI exonerated his suspected involvement in the robbery attempt.

Lesson: The client tried to make the claim that he could not file his lawsuit against the lawyer until after the FBI exonerated him of any involvement on the basis that if he were found to be guilty, he would have suffered no damages as a result of the lawyer’s misconduct. This claim contradicts the client’s assertion that he was harmed as a result of the suspension from his job and damage to his reputation. This case demonstrates the importance of attention to statutes of limitations. If the client had filed his complaint within two-years from the time that the breach of fiduciary duty occurred, it likely would not have been dismissed.

Tags: , , ,

PA: Statute of Limitations 2 years.

Posted on August 23, 2010 by Ben Wasserman

Teamsters Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 764 v. Greenawalt, 919 F. Supp. 774 (M.D. Pa. 1996)

PA Underlying labor dispute.

Student Contributor: Colleen Gaedcke

Facts: The plaintiff, a union, sued the defendant, former union counsel, for legal malpractice for allegedly improperly advising the former union president and co-defendant to collect a severance pay. According to union by-laws, union officers are not supposed to get severance, however the plaintiffs argue that the defendant got a severance pay in the form of a car. The defendant used the car during his assignment as union president, but when he left the defendants allegedly made an arrangement that transferred the car to the defendant in exchange for the car’s fair market fault payable to the union.

Issue: Whether the plaintiff’s suit was timely filed?  

Ruling: No. The plaintiff’s cause of action accrued more than two years prior to them filing the action therefore their action is time-barred.
1.) Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations for a legal malpractice claim is two years.

2.) “A cause of action accrues under Pennsylvania law and the limitations period begins to run when ‘the plaintiff knows, or reasonably should know, 1) that he has been injured, and 2) that his injury has been caused by another party’s conduct.’”

3.) Here, the plaintiffs were aware of some potential wrong doing as early as September of 1991 however they failed this action in December of 1993. Thus, the “plaintiff unreasonably and unjustifiably waited too long to file this action.”

Lesson: In Pennsylvania, an attorney cannot be sued for legal malpractice where the alleged malpractice occurred more than two years prior to the date the action was filed.

 

Tags: , ,