continuing representation doctrine in Massachusetts

2016The court in Murphy adopted the continuing representation doctrine as an exception to the discovery rule, holding that the doctrine "tolls the statute of limitations in legal malpractice actions where the attorney in question continues to represent the plaintiff's interests in the matter in question." Id. at 137 .

2016The continuing representation doctrine "recognizes that a person seeking professional assistance has a right to repose confidence in the professional's ability and good faith, and realistically cannot be expected to question and assess the techniques employed or the manner in which the 21 services are rendered." Id., quoting Cantu v. Saint Paul Cos., 401 Mass. 53, 58 (1987).

2016That doctrine is based on the notion that “a person seeking professional assistance has a right to repose confidence in the professional’s ability and good faith and realistically cannot be expected to question and assess the techniques employed or the manner in which those services are rendered.” Murphy v. Smith, 411 Mass. 133, 137 (1999), quoting with approval Greene v. Greene, 56 N.Y.2d 86, 93-95 (1982).

2003Continuing Representation Doctrine In an attempt to save his claims, Marnerakis asserts the continuing representation doctrine, which “recognizes that a person seeking professional assistance has a right to repose confidence in the professional’s ability and good faith, and realistically cannot be expected to question and assess the techniques employed or the manner in which the services are rendered.” Cantu , 401 Mass, at 58, quoting Greene v. Greene, 56 N.Y.2d 86, 94 (1982).

2016The continuing representation doctrine "recognizes that a person seeking professional assistance has a right to repose confidence in the professional's ability and good faith, and realistically cannot be expected to question and assess the techniques employed or the manner in which the 21 services are rendered." Id., quoting Cantu v. Saint Paul Cos., 401 Mass. 53, 58 (1987).

2016In Lyons v. Nutt, 436 Mass. 244, 250 (2002), we held that the continuing representation exception to the discovery rule in a legal malpractice case terminates once "the client actually knows that he suffered appreciable harm as a result of his attorney's conduct." We reasoned that once "the client has such knowledge, then there is no 'innocent reliance which the continued representation doctrine seeks to protect.'" Id., quoting Cantu, 401 Mass. at 58 .

2018Moreover, the continuing representation doctrine has no application where, as in this case, "the client actually knows that [s]he has suffered appreciable harm as a result of [her] attorney's conduct." Lyons v. Nutt , 436 Mass. 244 , 250 (2002).

2016In Lyons v. Nutt, 436 Mass. 244, 250 (2002), we held that the continuing representation exception to the discovery rule in a legal malpractice case terminates once "the client actually knows that he suffered appreciable harm as a result of his attorney's conduct." We reasoned that once "the client has such knowledge, then there is no 'innocent reliance which the continued representation doctrine seeks to protect.'" Id., quoting Cantu, 401 Mass. at 58 .

2026In that matter, "the defendant continued to represent the wife [through the trial], 'a decisive fact,' which '[brought] the case within the continuing representation doctrine[.)"' Swasey v. Barron, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 127, 132 (1999), quoting Spilios, 38 Mass. App. Ct. at 341 .

2002The Appeals Court did not rely on the continuing representation doctrine. 8 Id. at 340 .

2026This doctrine ''tolls the statute of limitations in legal malpractice actions where the attorney in question continues to represent the plaintiff's interests in the matter in question." Frankston. 74 Mass. App. Ct. at 377 , quoting Murphy. 411 Mass. at 137 .

2013The continuing representation doctrine “tolls the statute of limitations in legal malpractice actions where the attorney in question continues to represent the plaintiffs interests in the matter in question.” Murphy v. Smith, 411 Mass. 133, 137 (1991); see Lyons , 436 Mass, at 250; Frankston, 74 Mass.App.Ct. at 377 .

2015Rudenauer v. Zafiropoulos, 445 Mass. 353, 357 (2005). 19 See Murphy v. Smith, 411 Mass, at 137 (citing to Louisiana, New York, South Dakota, and Virginia case law); Carter v. Haygood, 892 So. 2d 1261, 1268, 1271-1272 (La. 2005) (holding that the prescriptive one-year period for medical malpractice actions can be tolled by continuing treatment, and analogizing to the legal malpractice continuing representation rule); Borgia v. New York, 12 N.Y.2d 151, 155 (1962) (“We hold that at least when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously *794 and is re

1997See, e.g., Succession of Smith, 565 So.2d at 995 (analyzing conduct and communications between plaintiff and defendant attorneys responsible for plaintiffs injuries); Spillios, 38 Mass.App.Ct. at 341 (analyzing negligent attorney’s continuing representation of plaintiff in divorce action); Schoenrock, 419 N.W.2d at 201-02 (analyzing last communications and comments made between plaintiff and negligent attorney).

1997See, e.g., Succession of Smith, 565 So.2d at 995 (analyzing conduct and communications between plaintiff and defendant attorneys responsible for plaintiffs injuries); Spillios, 38 Mass.App.Ct. at 341 (analyzing negligent attorney’s continuing representation of plaintiff in divorce action); Schoenrock, 419 N.W.2d at 201-02 (analyzing last communications and comments made between plaintiff and negligent attorney).

1991See, e.g., Succession of Smith v. Kavanaugh, Pierson & Talley, 565 So. 2d 990, 995 (La.

2026In that matter, "the defendant continued to represent the wife [through the trial], 'a decisive fact,' which '[brought] the case within the continuing representation doctrine[.)"' Swasey v. Barron, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 127, 132 (1999), quoting Spilios, 38 Mass. App. Ct. at 341 .

2023See 477 Harrison Ave., LLC v. JACE Boston, LLC, 483 Mass. 514 , 523 (2019) (colorable claim for breach of contract requires plaintiff to establish breach). 7 of harm are undisputed, the question may be decided as a matter of law." Vinci, supra. "The continuing representation doctrine 'tolls the statute of limitations in legal malpractice actions where the attorney in question continues to represent the plaintiff's interests in the matter in question.'" Vinci, 65 Mass. App. Ct. at 139 .

2023See 477 Harrison Ave., LLC v. JACE Boston, LLC, 483 Mass. 514 , 523 (2019) (colorable claim for breach of contract requires plaintiff to establish breach). 7 of harm are undisputed, the question may be decided as a matter of law." Vinci, supra. "The continuing representation doctrine 'tolls the statute of limitations in legal malpractice actions where the attorney in question continues to represent the plaintiff's interests in the matter in question.'" Vinci, 65 Mass. App. Ct. at 139 .

2016Indeed, in Lyons, 436 Mass. at 247-248, 251 , we affirmed the judge’s ruling that the continuing representation exception did not apply after the client realized that his law firm “didn’t know what they were doing” once the offeror “walked away from the deal.” See Hendrickson v. Sears, 365 Mass. 83, 91 (1974) (“A client’s cause of action against an attorney for negligent certification of title to real estate does not ‘accrue’ . . . until the misrepresentation is discovered or should reasonably have been discovered, whichever first occurs ...”).

2016Indeed, in Lyons, 436 Mass. at 247-248, 251 , we affirmed the judge's ruling that the continuing representation exception did not apply after the client realized that his law firm "didn't 28 know what they were doing" once the offeror "walked away from the deal." See Hendrickson v. Sears, 365 Mass. 83, 91 (1974) ("A client's cause of action against an attorney for negligent certification of title to real estate does not 'accrue' . . . until the misrepresentation is discovered or should reasonably have been discovered, whichever first occurs . . .").

2015Rudenauer v. Zafiropoulos, 445 Mass. 353, 357 (2005). 19 See Murphy v. Smith, 411 Mass, at 137 (citing to Louisiana, New York, South Dakota, and Virginia case law); Carter v. Haygood, 892 So. 2d 1261, 1268, 1271-1272 (La. 2005) (holding that the prescriptive one-year period for medical malpractice actions can be tolled by continuing treatment, and analogizing to the legal malpractice continuing representation rule); Borgia v. New York, 12 N.Y.2d 151, 155 (1962) (“We hold that at least when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously *794 and is re

2015Rudenauer v. Zafiropoulos, 445 Mass. 353, 357 (2005). 19 See Murphy v. Smith, 411 Mass, at 137 (citing to Louisiana, New York, South Dakota, and Virginia case law); Carter v. Haygood, 892 So. 2d 1261, 1268, 1271-1272 (La. 2005) (holding that the prescriptive one-year period for medical malpractice actions can be tolled by continuing treatment, and analogizing to the legal malpractice continuing representation rule); Borgia v. New York, 12 N.Y.2d 151, 155 (1962) (“We hold that at least when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously *794 and is re

2015Rudenauer v. Zafiropoulos, 445 Mass. 353, 357 (2005). 19 See Murphy v. Smith, 411 Mass, at 137 (citing to Louisiana, New York, South Dakota, and Virginia case law); Carter v. Haygood, 892 So. 2d 1261, 1268, 1271-1272 (La. 2005) (holding that the prescriptive one-year period for medical malpractice actions can be tolled by continuing treatment, and analogizing to the legal malpractice continuing representation rule); Borgia v. New York, 12 N.Y.2d 151, 155 (1962) (“We hold that at least when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously *794 and is re

2013Lahnston points to Eck v. Kellem, where the court applied the continuing representation doctrine even though the defendant attorney had stopped representing the client who had hired subsequent counsel. 51 Mass.App.Ct. 850, 855 (2001).

1997See, e.g., Succession of Smith, 565 So.2d at 995 (analyzing conduct and communications between plaintiff and defendant attorneys responsible for plaintiffs injuries); Spillios, 38 Mass.App.Ct. at 341 (analyzing negligent attorney’s continuing representation of plaintiff in divorce action); Schoenrock, 419 N.W.2d at 201-02 (analyzing last communications and comments made between plaintiff and negligent attorney).

1997Cuccolo v. Lipsky, Goodkin & Co., 826 F.Supp. 763, 768 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).

1987Pursuant to this doctrine, which is the law in several jurisdictions, see, e.g., Greene v. Greene, 56 N.Y.2d 86, 93-94 (1982); McCormick v. Romans, 214 Va. 144, 148-149 (1973), the statute of limitations may be tolled while the defendant attorney continues to represent the plaintiff.