A Bronx County Supreme Court judge dismissed a legal malpractice suit in its entirety at the pleading stage against a law firm represented successfully by Goldberg Segalla partner Joanne J. Romero.

The case stemmed from a complaint in which the plaintiff alleged negligence, legal malpractice, and breach of contract, claiming the firm mishandled two underlying personal injury actions connected to a 2012 incident.

The claimant specifically alleged the firm failed to communicate with him about the status of his cases, and when his phone calls were returned, very little information was relayed to him. The plaintiff also claimed he was never notified that an attorney working on his file had left the firm in 2020 and never filed a motion to withdraw as counsel from the case or find a substitute counsel.

Under the statute of limitations, malpractice claims in New York must be filed within three years of the alleged malpractice. In waging her defense, Joanne argued that dismissal was warranted on multiple independent grounds, including that the statute of limitations barred the legal malpractice claim against our client since representation ended at the time the firm ceased prosecuting the action with no subsequent work performed or communications returned. Noting that the claimant’s own complaint acknowledged there was no activity by the law firm since before Jan. 29, 2016, and that inquiries to the firm went unanswered, Joanne reasoned there was no basis for the plaintiff to claim any attorney relationship existed after that point.

However, the plaintiff claimed his suit was timely, citing the ‘continuous representation doctrine’ which pauses the running of the statute of limitations if an attorney continues to represent the client on matters related to the alleged malpractice. In citing the continuous representation doctrine, the plaintiff claimed he had been left with the “reasonable impression” that the firm was, in fact, still actively addressing his legal needs and that his continued efforts to communicate with the firm reflected that understanding.

The Bronx County Supreme Court judge presiding over the case agreed with Joanne and rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on the continuous representation doctrine and dismissed the suit in its entirety — early in the pleading stage of the case — on statute-of-limitation grounds.

The ruling in this case is especially notable given that courts ordinarily view continuous representation as a ‘fact-intensive’ issue that is difficult to defeat early, particularly where there has been no formal withdrawal, substitution of counsel, or clear communication that the representation has ended. Thus, courts often allow claims to proceed based on the client’s reasonable belief that the attorney-client relationship was continuing.

Yet, here, despite the absence of any formal withdrawal or explicit communication terminating the attorney client relationship, the judge, relying on Shumsky v. Eisenstein, held that prolonged noncommunication and complete inactivity, spanning years, were sufficient to place the client on notice that representation had effectively ceased, thereby ending any pause under the continuous representation doctrine.

Joanne J. Romero’s practice focuses on representing employers in employment discrimination and harassment cases in state and federal courts, as well as before administrative agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, New York State Division of Human Rights, and New York City Commission on Human Rights. She also defends professionals against errors and omissions claims in civil proceedings brought in state and federal courts. To learn more about this particular case and its impact, reach out to Joanne HERE.