E.D. Ken. – Important Limitation to the Continuous Representation Rule
By Will Jordan
We’ve written about the continuous representation rule a few times on this blog. (See here and here). As the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky noted, the continuous representation rule tolls the statute of limitations on a legal malpractice claim “so long as the attorney continues to represent the client in the matter.” Notice the emphasis supplied by the Court: “the matter,” not “a matter,” not “any matter.” As the Court made clear, “the continuous representation rule requires that the attorney’s legal counsel to the plaintiff relates to the same transaction or subject matter as the allegedly negligent acts.” The Court held, therefore, that the lawyer’s continued representation of the client on personal estate and tax matters did not toll the statute of limitations on a claim arising from the lawyer’s allegedly negligent handling for the client of a business merger.
Osborn v. Griffin, Nos. 2011-89 (WOB-CJS), 2013-32 (WOB-CJS) (E.D. Ken., Sept. 29, 2014).
Read the full opinion here.