Opinion ID: 1618300
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the continuing attorney-client relationship between Lake and the Stevens toll the running of the limitations period?

Text: The Stevens further argue that as long as an attorney-client relationship existed between themselves and attorney Lake, the statute of limitations could not run. Lake and his firm represented the Stevens until January 22, 1987, so according to the Appellants, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until that date. We reject the analogy drawn by the Appellants between the case sub judice and cases which have held that the Statute of Frauds does not apply as between parties who are bound by a fiduciary relationship. See Neyland v. Neyland, 482 So.2d 228, 230 (Miss. 1986); Evanovich v. Hutto, 204 So.2d 477, 479 (Miss. 1967). The premise of the continuous representation rule is that the cause of action in an attorney malpractice case should not accrue until the attorney's representation concerning a particular transaction is terminated. 2 Mallen & Smith, Legal Malpractice § 18.12 at 115 (3d ed. 1989). The treatise goes on to note that [t]he inquiry is not whether an attorney-client relationship still exists but when the representation of the specific matter terminated... . Representation on unrelated matters does not suffice [to toll the running of an applicable statute of limitations]. Id. at 119; see also K73 Corp. v. Stancati, 174 Mich. App. 225, 435 N.W.2d 433 (1988) (in legal negligence action against attorney who handled sale of business, limitations statute began to run after completion of representation concerning sale despite attorney's continued representation of plaintiff corporation on other matters); Norfolk Iron v. Larry L. Behnke, P.C., 230 Neb. 414, 432 N.W.2d 18 (1988) (in action against accountant for alleged negligent failure to discover shortage in scrap metal inventory, statute of limitations began to run when audit of scrap metal inventories ended despite continued rendering of services relating to separate audits); Schoenrock v. Tappe, 419 N.W.2d 197 (S.D. 1988) (in legal negligence action predicated on erroneous title opinion, court found that doctrine of continuous representation applies only where professional's involvement after the alleged malpractice is for the performance of the same or related services and is not merely continuity of a general professional relationship.). The record reveals that attorney Lake last represented the Stevens on matters relating to the failed trust of Leo Stevens, Jr. in June of 1980. Although he continued to represent the Stevens Partnership on other matters until January of 1987, we find that the post-1980 representation did not toll the limitation on actions arising out of Lake's handling of the Stevens Family Trust.