La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5605 (2026)

Actions for legal malpractice

✓ laws through the 2025 Regular Session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§5605. Actions for legal malpractice

           A. No action for damages against any attorney at law duly admitted to practice in this state, any partnership of such attorneys at law, or any professional corporation, company, organization, association, enterprise, or other commercial business or professional combination authorized by the laws of this state to engage in the practice of law, whether based upon tort, or breach of contract, or otherwise, arising out of an engagement to provide legal services 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 provisions of this Section are remedial and apply to all causes of action without regard to the date when the alleged act, omission, or neglect occurred. However, with respect to any alleged act, omission, or neglect occurring prior to September 7, 1990, actions must, in all events, be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and proper venue on or before September 7, 1993, without regard to the date of discovery of the alleged act, omission, or neglect. 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, any partnership of such attorneys at law, or any professional law corporation, company, organization, association, enterprise, or other commercial business or professional combination authorized by the laws of this state to engage in the practice of law, the prescriptive and peremptive period shall be governed exclusively by this Section.

           D. The provisions of this Section shall apply to all persons whether or not infirm or under disability of any kind and including minors and interdicts.

           E. The peremptive period provided in Subsection A of this Section shall not apply in cases of fraud, as defined in Civil Code Article 1953.

           Acts 1990, No. 683, §1; Acts 1992, No. 611, §1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 266 cases (49 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Jenkins v. Starns, 85 So. 3d 612 (La. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jenkins v. Starns, 85 So. 3d 612 (La. 2012). · cites it 115× “R.S. 9:5605. For the reasons discussed herein, we reverse the court of appeal and conclude the commencement of the peremptive periods in La.”
Tracy Ray Lomont v. Michelle Myer-Bennett & Xyz Ins. Co., 172 So. 3d 620 (La. 2015). · cites it 44× “R.S. 9:5605. Ms. Lomont opposed the exception, arguing the peremptive period should not apply because Ms.”
Naghi v. Brener, 17 So. 3d 919 (La. 2009). · cites it 38× “R.S. 9:5605. Because nothing may interfere with the running of a peremptive period, we hold that an amended and supplemental petition adding a plaintiff cannot relate back to the original petition in this case; therefore, we reverse the judgments of the lower courts and remand…”
Dauterive Contractors, Inc. v. Landry & Watkins, 811 So. 2d 1242 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 34× “R.S. 9:5605 by plaintiff-client, Dauterive Contractors, Inc.”
Teague v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 974 So. 2d 1266 (La. 2008). · cites it 22× “This legal malpractice action presents the question of whether knowledge of an undesirable result is sufficient to trigger the running of peremption under La.Rev. Stat. § 9:5605. The plaintiff, a physician who was sued by his patient for medical malpractice, filed the instant…”
Miralda v. Gonzalez, 160 So. 3d 998 (La. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 26× “” This appeal by Mr. Miralda followed. Mr. Gonzalez answered the appeal seeking costs and frivolous appeal damages.”
Marsh Eng'g Inc. v. Parker, 883 So. 2d 1119 (La. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 29× “R.S. 9:5605. After a November 3, 2003 hearing, the trial court rendered judgment granting the exception and dismissing the six defendants from the litigation.”
Reeder v. North, 701 So. 2d 1291 (La. 1997). · cites it 18× “R.S. 9:5605 did not perempt plaintiff's legal malpractice suit even though plaintiff filed suit more than three years after the date of the alleged negligent act.”
Hendrick v. ABC Ins. Co., 787 So. 2d 283 (La. 2001). · cites it 20× “The appellate court, applying pre-La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:5605 law, held that Stone Pigman's continuous representation of Hendrick suspended prescription until the representation ended with the United States Supreme Court denial of certiorari in the RICO suit in October 1990.”
Brumfield v. McElwee, 976 So. 2d 234 (La. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 21× “R.S. 9:5605 An action for legal malpractice is governed by La.”
Garner v. Lizana, 131 So. 3d 1105 (La. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 37× “R.S. 9:5605 did not apply due to the fraud exception set forth in Subsection E of that statute.”
Turnbull v. Thensted, 757 So. 2d 145 (La. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 22× “Judge Fedoroff concluded that the three year limitation period of LSA-R.S. 9:5605 A barred Mr. Koerner's suit since Mr.”
Show all 266 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5605(A): 81 cases
Jenkins v. Starns, 85 So. 3d 612 (La. 2012). “R.S. 9:5605. For the reasons discussed herein, we reverse the court of appeal and conclude the commencement of the peremptive periods in La.”
Miralda v. Gonzalez, 160 So. 3d 998 (La. Ct. App. 2015). “” This appeal by Mr. Miralda followed. Mr. Gonzalez answered the appeal seeking costs and frivolous appeal damages.”
Tracy Ray Lomont v. Michelle Myer-Bennett & Xyz Ins. Co., 172 So. 3d 620 (La. 2015). “R.S. 9:5605. Ms. Lomont opposed the exception, arguing the peremptive period should not apply because Ms.”
Brumfield v. McElwee, 976 So. 2d 234 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “R.S. 9:5605 An action for legal malpractice is governed by La.”
Dauterive Contractors, Inc. v. Landry & Watkins, 811 So. 2d 1242 (La. Ct. App. 2002). “R.S. 9:5605 by plaintiff-client, Dauterive Contractors, Inc.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5605(B): 38 cases
Naghi v. Brener, 17 So. 3d 919 (La. 2009). “R.S. 9:5605. Because nothing may interfere with the running of a peremptive period, we hold that an amended and supplemental petition adding a plaintiff cannot relate back to the original petition in this case; therefore, we reverse the judgments of the lower courts and remand…”
Jenkins v. Starns, 85 So. 3d 612 (La. 2012). “R.S. 9:5605. For the reasons discussed herein, we reverse the court of appeal and conclude the commencement of the peremptive periods in La.”
Marsh Eng'g Inc. v. Parker, 883 So. 2d 1119 (La. Ct. App. 2004). “R.S. 9:5605. After a November 3, 2003 hearing, the trial court rendered judgment granting the exception and dismissing the six defendants from the litigation.”
Hodges v. Reasonover, 103 So. 3d 1069 (La. 2012).
Dauterive Contractors, Inc. v. Landry & Watkins, 811 So. 2d 1242 (La. Ct. App. 2002). “R.S. 9:5605 by plaintiff-client, Dauterive Contractors, Inc.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5605(C): 3 cases
Carriere v. Bodenheimer, Jones, Szwak, & Winchell, L.L.P., 120 So. 3d 281 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
Allen v. Carollo, 674 So. 2d 283 (La. Ct. App. 1996).
Zeno v. Alex, 89 So. 3d 1223 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5605(D): 2 cases
Miralda v. Gonzalez, 160 So. 3d 998 (La. Ct. App. 2015). “” This appeal by Mr. Miralda followed. Mr. Gonzalez answered the appeal seeking costs and frivolous appeal damages.”
Succession of Hellmers, 637 So. 2d 1302 (La. Ct. App. 1994).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5605(E): 60 cases
Tracy Ray Lomont v. Michelle Myer-Bennett & Xyz Ins. Co., 172 So. 3d 620 (La. 2015). “R.S. 9:5605. Ms. Lomont opposed the exception, arguing the peremptive period should not apply because Ms.”
Garner v. Lizana, 131 So. 3d 1105 (La. Ct. App. 2013). “R.S. 9:5605 did not apply due to the fraud exception set forth in Subsection E of that statute.”
Miralda v. Gonzalez, 160 So. 3d 998 (La. Ct. App. 2015). “” This appeal by Mr. Miralda followed. Mr. Gonzalez answered the appeal seeking costs and frivolous appeal damages.”
Lomont v. Myer-Bennett, 210 So. 3d 435 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
Brumfield v. McElwee, 976 So. 2d 234 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “R.S. 9:5605 An action for legal malpractice is governed by La.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5605(H): 1 case
Poe v. United Ass'n of Journeyman & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. of the United States AFL-CIO Local 198 Health & Welfare Fund, No. 3:18-cv-00667 (M.D. La. Oct. 1, 2019).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5605(b): 1 case
Stanley ex rel. Est. of Hale v. Trinchard, 579 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 2009).
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.