Opinion ID: 2551818
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: La. R.S. 9:5605

Text: The time limits for filing a legal malpractice claim are now contained in La. R.S. 9:5605, enacted in 1990 and amended in 1992, which provides in pertinent part: A. No action for damages against any attorney at law duly admitted to practice in this state . . . shall be brought unless filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and proper venue within one year from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect, or within one year from the date that the alleged act, omission, or neglect is discovered or should have been discovered; however, even as to actions filed within one year from the date of such discovery, in all events such actions shall be filed at the latest within three years from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect. B. The one-year and three-year periods of limitation provided in Subsection A of this Section are peremptive periods within the meaning of Civil Code Article 3458 and, in accordance with Civil Code Article 3461, may not be renounced, interrupted, or suspended. C. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, in all actions brought in this state against any attorney at law duly admitted to practice in this state. . . the prescriptive and peremptive period shall be governed exclusively by this Section. Section B of La. R.S. 9:5605 expressly states, The one-year and three-year periods of limitation provided in Subsection A of this Section are peremptive periods within the meaning of Civil Code Article 3458 [5] and, in accordance with Civil Code Article 3461, may not be renounced, interrupted, or suspended. When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature. La. C.C. art. 9. In the cases following Hendrick, this Court has specifically addressed the time periods in La. R.S. 9:5605 and repeatedly held the statute clearly provides both the one-year and three-year periods are peremptive. Naghi, 08-2527 at 5, 17 So.3d at 922; Teague, 07-1384 at 11, 974 So.2d at 1274; Reeder, 97-0239 at 5-6, 701 So.2d at 1295. In Reeder v. North, the court of appeal held while the attorney-client relationship is in existence and the attorney is actively attempting to remedy the alleged malpractice until the judgment giving rise to the malpractice claim becomes definitive, a legal malpractice claim does not ripen into a cause of action and prescription or peremption does not begin to run. 96-165, pp. 9-10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/14/96); 683 So.2d 912, 916. This Court disagreed, holding the three-year period is peremptive. 97-0239 at 9-10, 701 So.2d at 1296-97. The plaintiff's claim was consequently time-barred because he did not file suit within three years from the date of the negligent act, even though he did not discover the basis for his claim until after the time period had expired. 97-0239 at 8-9, 701 So.2d at 1296-97. Comparing the legal malpractice statute to the medical malpractice statute, the Court noted the legal malpractice statute was more strongly worded because La. R.S. 9:5605 expressly states the period is peremptive and, in accordance with La. C.C. art. 3461, may not be renounced, interrupted, or suspended. Id. Acknowledging the three-year peremptive period may lead to harsh results, the Court reasoned, [t]he Legislature was aware of the pitfalls in this statute but decided, within its prerogative, to put a three-year absolute limit on a person's right to sue for legal malpractice, just as it would be within its prerogative to not allow legal malpractice actions at all. 97-0239 at 9, 701 So.2d at 1297. Eleven years later in Teague, this Court reaffirmed its holding in Reeder regarding the peremptive period in La. R.S. 9:5605. 07-1384 at 11, 974 So.2d at 1274. This Court held: [a] straightforward reading of the statute clearly shows that the statute sets forth two peremptive limits within which to bring a legal malpractice action, namely one year from the date of the alleged act or one year from the date of discovery with a three-year limitation from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect to bring such claims. 07-1384 at 11, 974 So.2d at 1274 ( citing La. R.S. 9:5605; Reeder, 97-0239 at 6, 701 So.2d at 1295). The Court reasoned the three-year period is an equitable exception to the commencement of peremption, which resembles the discovery exception of contra non valentem except the statutory exception is expressly inapplicable after three years from the act, omission, or neglect. Id. The Court found the plaintiff had no evidence to connect the bad result (the settlement) with the acts of malpractice by his attorneys because the attorneys never informed him of their failure to post a jury bond and knowingly withheld that information from him. 07-1384 at 17, 974 So.2d at 1277-78. The malpractice suit was therefore timely because it was filed within one year of discovering the acts of malpractice and within three years of the act of malpractice. This Court again reaffirmed its holding in Reeder in Naghi v. Brener. The issue before the court in Naghi was whether an amended petition can relate back to the time of filing the original petition under La. C.C.P. art. 1153 when the time period for filing suit is peremptive rather than prescriptive. 08-2527 at 8, 17 So.3d at 924. In discussing La. R.S. 9:5605, the Court again found the statute clearly provides the one-year and three-year time periods are peremptive, which is why the plaintiff's claim in Reeder was untimely even though he did not discover the basis for his malpractice claim until after the three-year period had expired. 08-2527 at 5, 17 So.3d at 922. Realizing the unfairness that may result from Reeder, the Court reiterated its prior statement regarding how the statutory period for filing suit is strictly a legislative prerogative, just as it is within the legislative prerogative not to allow a legal malpractice action at all. Id. (citing Reeder, 97-0239 at 9, 701 So.2d at 1297). While recognizing the facts in Reeder concerned the three-year period in La. R.S. 9:5605 and resulted in the Court finding it was a peremptive period, this Court held, for the same reasons we stated in Reeder, the one-year period is also peremptive. Id., 08-2527 at 5-6, 17 So.3d at 922 ( citing La. R.S. 9:5605(B); Teague, 07-1384 at 11-12, 974 So.2d 1266, 1274 ([a] straightforward reading of the statute clearly shows that the statute sets forth two peremptive limits within which to bring a legal malpractice action, namely one year from the date of the alleged act or one year from the date of discovery within a three-year limitation from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect to bring such claims)). While discussing the differences between prescription and peremption, the Court partially relied on the above quoted language from Hebert, 486 So.2d at 723. The Court subsequently found the relation back of a pleading avoids the operation of the peremptive time period by allowing a pleading filed after the expiration of the period to relate back to the filing of an original and timely filed petition. Naghi, 08-2527 at 10, 17 So.3d at 925. Since nothing may interfere with the running of a peremptive period, the Court held an amended and supplemental petition adding a plaintiff cannot relate back to the original petition. 08-2527 at 11, 17 So.3d at 926. Reaffirming this Court's decision in Reeder, Teague, and Naghi, we find La. R.S. 9:5605 clearly provides three peremptive periods: (1) a one-year peremptive period from the date of the act, neglect, or omission; (2) a one-year peremptive period from the date of discovering the act, neglect, or omission; (3) and a three-year peremptive period from the date of the act, neglect, or omission when the malpractice is discovered after the date of the act, neglect, or omission. We further find the continuous representation rule cannot apply to suspend the commencement of these peremptive periods, as it would render La. R.S. 9:5605(B) meaningless. We further find Reeder to be directly on point regarding the application of the continuous representation rule to the peremptive period in La. R.S. 9:5605. The facts in Reeder mirror those in the instant case. The plaintiff in Reeder claimed his attorney failed to raise all of the claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence in the original federal complaint, which barred his subsequent state law claims under res judicata. The trial court granted the defendant's exception of peremption under La. R.S. 9:5605, but the court of appeal reversed finding the commencement of the peremptive period was suspended under the continuous representation rule. This Court held the court of appeal erred in applying the continuous representation rule to suspend the three-year peremptive period under La. R.S. 9:5605. 97-0239 at 10, 701 So.2d at 1297. This Court found the court of appeal's reliance on Lima misplaced because Lima applied the one-year prescriptive period of La. C.C. art. 3492, since both the negligent act and the filing of the malpractice suit occurred prior to the enactment of La. R.S. 9:5605. In Lima, this Court held the prescriptive period was suspended during the attorney's continuous representation of the client regarding the specific subject matter in which the alleged wrongful act or omission occurred. Reeder, 97-0239 at 11, 701 So.2d at 1297 (citing Lima, 595 So.2d at 624, 630 (La. 1992) (internal citation omitted)). This Court further explained in Lima the continuous representation rule is a suspension principle . . . based on the third application of contra non valentem, which suspends prescription when the debtor has done some act effectually to prevent the creditor from availing himself of the cause of action. Reeder, 97-0239 at 11, 701 So.2d at 1297-98 (citing Lima, 595 So.2d at 630 (cites omitted)). This Court applied the continuous representation rule in Lima because article 3492 provides a prescriptive period rather than a peremptive period. 97-0239 at 11, 701 So.2d at 1297. As a suspension principle based on contra non valentem, the Court in Reeder held the continuous representation rule cannot apply to peremptive periods. The Court found this clear from the wording of La. R.S. 9:5605, which states the one-year and three-year periods are peremptive and may not be renounced, interrupted, or suspended, and article 3461, which states peremption may not be renounced, interrupted, or suspended. 97-0239 at 12, 701 So.2d at 1298. This Court then discussed the distinction between prescription and peremption, noting: Peremption differs from prescription in several respects. Although prescription prevents the enforcement of a right by legal action, it does not terminate the natural obligation (La. Civ.Code art. 1762(1)); peremption, however, extinguishes or destroys the right (La. Civ.Code art. 3458). Public policy requires that rights to which peremptive periods attach are to be extinguished after passage of a specified period. Accordingly, nothing may interfere with the running of a peremptive period. It may not be interrupted or suspended; nor is there provision for its renunciation. And exceptions such as contra non valentem are not applicable. As an inchoate right, prescription, on the other hand, may be renounced, interrupted, or suspended; and contra non valentem applies an exception to the statutory prescription period where in fact and for good cause a plaintiff is unable to exercise his cause of action when it accrues. Id., 97-0239 at 12-13, 701 So.2d at 1298 (citing Hebert, 486 So.2d at 723) (emphasis added). The Court in Reeder consequently found the malpractice claim untimely filed under the three-year peremptive period of La. R.S. 9:5605. The same reasoning applies here. The statute clearly states the one-year and three-year periods therein are peremptive and consequently cannot be renounced, interrupted, or suspended. La. R.S. 9:5605(B). In the present case, Jenkins had constructive knowledge and therefore, discovered Starns' acts of malpractice in January of 2007. Jenkins filed her malpractice suit in November of 2008, within three years of the acts of malpractice but more than one year after discovery. The lower courts, relying principally upon Lima and Hendrick, found her claim timely by applying the continuous representation rule to suspend commencement of the peremptive period. Just as the Court in Reeder found the court of appeal's reliance upon Lima misplaced, we also find the lower courts in this case erred in relying upon Lima to apply the continuous representation rule. Neither Hendrick nor Lima involved the application of La. R.S. 9:5605 to a legal malpractice claim. Instead, both cases applied the one year prescriptive period under La. C.C. art. 3492, which can be suspended or interrupted. As discussed at length above, in Reeder this Court held the continuous representation rule is a suspension principle based on contra non valentem and therefore cannot apply to peremptive periods. 97-0239 at 12, 701 So.2d at 1298. This Court also stated, nothing may interfere with the running of a peremptive period. . . . And exceptions such as contra non valentem are not applicable. . . . prescription. . . may be renounced, interrupted, or suspended; and contra non valentem applies an exception to the statutory prescription period. . . . 97-0239 at 12-13, 701 So.2d at 1298 (citing Hebert v. Doctors Memorial Hosp., 486 So.2d 717, 723 (La.1986)). Applying Reeder to this case, it is clear the trial court and court of appeal erred in applying the continuous representation rule to suspend the commencement of the peremptive period on Jenkins' malpractice suit. Our holding in Naghi similarly supports this conclusion, although Naghi involved the relation back of an amended and supplemental pleading. Although we did not discuss the continuous representation rule in Naghi, in reference to the one-year period from the discovery of the act of malpractice we held, [t]he latter period clearly carves out an equitable exception to the commencement of peremption that resembles the discovery exception of our jurisprudential doctrine of contra non valentem with an additional qualification that the statutory discovery exception is expressly made inapplicable after three years from the act, omission, or neglect. 07-1384 at 11, 974 So.2d at 1274. The Court went on to state [g]iven the resemblance between the statutory discovery rule and our jurisprudential one, it logically follows that we interpret the statutory rule in accordance with the jurisprudential one, but within the statutory limitations. 07-1384 at 12, 974 So.2d at 1275. By comparing the three-year period in La. R.S. 9:5605 to the doctrine of contra non valentem, but limiting the similarity to the statutory framework of La. R.S. 9:5605, this Court effectively distinguished the two and placed greater restrictions on the application of the three-year period. Since the statutory limitations in La. R.S. 9:5605 state the time periods therein are peremptive and cannot be renounced, interrupted, or suspended, this restriction supports our concluding the continuous representation rule cannot apply as an exception to the commencement of the peremptive periods.