Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 6-5-574 (2026)
Limitation on Time for Commencement of Legal Service Liability Action.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) All legal service liability actions against a legal service provider must be commenced within two years after the act or omission or failure giving rise to the claim, and not afterwards; provided, that if the cause of action is not discovered and could not reasonably have been discovered within such period, then the action may be commenced within six months from the date of such discovery or the date of discovery of facts which would reasonably lead to such discovery, whichever is earlier; provided, further, that in no event may the action be commenced more than four years after such act or omission or failure; except, that an act or omission or failure giving rise to a claim which occurred before August 1, 1987, shall not in any event be barred until the expiration of one year from such date.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall be subject to all existing provisions of law relating to the computation of statutory periods of limitations for the commencement of actions, namely, Sections 6-2-1, 6-2-2, 6-2-3, 6-2-5, 6-2-6, 6-2-8, 6-2-9, 6-2-10, 6-2-13, 6-2-15, 6-2-16, 6-2-17, 6-2-30, and 6-2-39; provided, that notwithstanding any provisions of such sections, no action shall be commenced more than four years after the act, omission, or failure complained of; except, that in the case of a minor under four years of age, such minor shall have until his or her eighth birthday to commence such action.
(Acts 1988, No. 88-262, p. 406, §5.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Ex Parte Panell, 756 So. 2d 862 (Ala. 1999).
Ex Parte Panell, 756 So. 2d 862 (Ala. 1999). “The main opinion is correct in only one respect Panell's action is barred by the statute of limitations found in Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-574. That section of the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act provides in pertinent part: "(a) All legal service liability actions against a…”
Coilplus-Alabama, Inc. v. Vann, 53 So. 3d 898 (Ala. 2010). “On December 2, 2002, Vann and Sirote & Permutt (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the defendants”) filed an answer in which they raised several affirmative defenses, including an assertion that Coilplus’s claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations set out…”
Taylor v. Stevenson, 820 So. 2d 810 (Ala. 2001). “The lawyers' ground for dismissal or summary judgment is the bar of the legal malpractice statute of limitations, § 6-5-574, Ala.Code 1975. We affirm because the lawyers presented only an unsubstantiated and incomplete argument to the trial court and only now, for the first time…”
Dennis v. Northcutt, 887 So. 2d 219 (Ala. 2004). “" "Under § 6-5-574, `a legal-malpractice cause of action accrues, and the statute-of-limitations period begins to run, when "the act or omission or failure giving rise to the claim" occurs, and not when the client first suffers actual damage.”
Mississippi Valley Title Ins. Co. v. J. Garrison Thompson, 754 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2014). “SCHLESINGER, District Judge: This appeal presents a relatively simple question, but one that the Alabama Supreme Court is best-equipped to answer: Does an “attorney agent” who works under contract for a title insurance company provide a “legal service” within the meaning of…”
Rutledge v. Freeman, 914 So. 2d 364 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-574(a). The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Freeman on Rutledge's claim relating to acts or omissions between December 2, 1999, and December 7, 2000, based on the statute-of-limitations defense, and it made that judgment final pursuant…”
Kachler v. Taylor, 849 F. Supp. 1503 (M.D. Ala. 1994). “Subsection (a) to § 6-5-574 of the 1975 Ala.Code provides: “All legal service liability actions against a legal service provider must be commenced within two years after the act or omission or failure giving rise to the claim, and not afterwards; provided, that if the cause of…”
Ex Parte Seabol, 782 So. 2d 212 (Ala. 2000). “" Under § 6-5-574, "a legal-malpractice cause of action accrues, and the statute-of-limitations period begins to run, when `the act or omission or failure giving rise to the claim' occurs, and not when the client first suffers actual damage.”
Mississippi Valley Title Ins. Co. v. J. Garrison Thompson, 802 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2015). “e: On June 19, 2014, this Court — confronted by a question of first impression under Alabama law, and cognizant of the deference due state courts in our federalist system of dual sovereignty — certified the following question to the Alabama Supreme Court: Is an attorney whom an…”
Miss. Valley Title Ins. v. Hooper, 707 So. 2d 209 (Ala. 1997). “Therefore, § 6-5-574 applied, including the provision stating that, notwithstanding the provisions of other statutes of limitations, "no action shall be commenced more than four years after the act, omission, or failure complained of.”
Cockrell v. Pruitt, 214 So. 3d 324 (Ala. 2016). “In their brief in support of their motion for a summary judgment, the Cockrell defendants argued, in part, that Pruitt’s legal-malpractice claims against them were barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in § 6-5-574, Ala.Code 1975. They asserted that Pruitt’s…”
Wesson v. McCleave, Roberts, Shields & Green, PC, 810 So. 2d 652 (Ala. 2001). “On November 22, 1999, the firm and McCleave moved to dismiss Wesson's legal-malpractice action, on the ground that it had not been filed within the limitations period prescribed by § 6-5-574(a), Ala. Code 1975, and they moved the court to lift the stay so that it could consider…”
— Ala. Code § 6-5-574(a) — 33 cases
Ex Parte Panell, 756 So. 2d 862 (Ala. 1999). “The main opinion is correct in only one respect Panell's action is barred by the statute of limitations found in Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-574. That section of the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act provides in pertinent part: "(a) All legal service liability actions against a…”
Coilplus-Alabama, Inc. v. Vann, 53 So. 3d 898 (Ala. 2010). “On December 2, 2002, Vann and Sirote & Permutt (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the defendants”) filed an answer in which they raised several affirmative defenses, including an assertion that Coilplus’s claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations set out…”
Rutledge v. Freeman, 914 So. 2d 364 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-574(a). The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Freeman on Rutledge's claim relating to acts or omissions between December 2, 1999, and December 7, 2000, based on the statute-of-limitations defense, and it made that judgment final pursuant…”
Dennis v. Northcutt, 887 So. 2d 219 (Ala. 2004). “" "Under § 6-5-574, `a legal-malpractice cause of action accrues, and the statute-of-limitations period begins to run, when "the act or omission or failure giving rise to the claim" occurs, and not when the client first suffers actual damage.”
Wesson v. McCleave, Roberts, Shields & Green, PC, 810 So. 2d 652 (Ala. 2001). “On November 22, 1999, the firm and McCleave moved to dismiss Wesson's legal-malpractice action, on the ground that it had not been filed within the limitations period prescribed by § 6-5-574(a), Ala. Code 1975, and they moved the court to lift the stay so that it could consider…”
— Ala. Code § 6-5-574(b) — 9 cases
Coilplus-Alabama, Inc. v. Vann, 53 So. 3d 898 (Ala. 2010). “On December 2, 2002, Vann and Sirote & Permutt (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the defendants”) filed an answer in which they raised several affirmative defenses, including an assertion that Coilplus’s claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations set out…”
Ex Parte Seabol, 782 So. 2d 212 (Ala. 2000). “" Under § 6-5-574, "a legal-malpractice cause of action accrues, and the statute-of-limitations period begins to run, when `the act or omission or failure giving rise to the claim' occurs, and not when the client first suffers actual damage.”
Dennis v. Northcutt, 887 So. 2d 219 (Ala. 2004). “" "Under § 6-5-574, `a legal-malpractice cause of action accrues, and the statute-of-limitations period begins to run, when "the act or omission or failure giving rise to the claim" occurs, and not when the client first suffers actual damage.”
Rutledge v. Freeman, 914 So. 2d 364 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). “See Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-574(a). The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Freeman on Rutledge's claim relating to acts or omissions between December 2, 1999, and December 7, 2000, based on the statute-of-limitations defense, and it made that judgment final pursuant…”
Miss. Valley Title Ins. v. Hooper, 707 So. 2d 209 (Ala. 1997). “Therefore, § 6-5-574 applied, including the provision stating that, notwithstanding the provisions of other statutes of limitations, "no action shall be commenced more than four years after the act, omission, or failure complained of.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.