Hiligh v. Sands, 389 F. Supp. 3d 69

In 1997 Wilbur Hiligh suffered severe injuries at a Federal Express loading dock and retained Duncan & Hopkins, P.C. in 1998 to pursue remedies including workers' compensation and a civil suit.
Duncan & Hopkins filed a Superior Court civil complaint on January 28, 2000 naming the wrong defendants and voluntarily dismissed it in October 2000; the D.C. three-year statute of limitations for tort claims had expired on January 31, 2000.
Hiligh alleges his lawyers failed to investigate proper defendants or preserve claims before the limitations deadline, costing him the ability to sue the manufacturer/installer.
Duncan & Hopkins continued representing Hiligh in D.C. workers' compensation proceedings (ALJ hearings, appeals) through 2017; the firm notified Hiligh in 2015 it would cease representation and formally moved to withdraw in 2017.
Hiligh sued Duncan & Hopkins and attorneys for legal malpractice nearly two decades after the 2000 dismissal; William S. Sands, Jr. moved for summary judgment asserting he did not represent Hiligh at the time of the alleged malpractice; the firm and partner John C. Duncan, III moved to dismiss or for summary judgment arguing the malpractice claim is time-barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sands can be liable for 2000 malpractice	Hiligh asserts respondeat superior liability for firm employees including Sands	Sands says he did not represent Hiligh until ~2014 and performed no work related to the 2000 civil case	Court: Grant summary judgment for Sands — no attorney-client relationship at time of alleged malpractice, so no duty/liability
Whether the malpractice claim against the firm is time-barred	Hiligh invokes the continuous-representation rule: ongoing workers' comp representation tolled accrual until 2017	Firm argues distinct matters/tribunals and D.C. 3-year limitations expired in 2000	Court: Deny dismissal — plausibly alleged continuous representation tying civil claim and workers' compensation representation, so limitations tolled until representation ended (~2017)

Chase v. Gilbert, 499 A.2d 1203 (D.C. 1985) (elements of legal malpractice claim)
R.D.H. Communications v. Winston, 700 A.2d 766 (D.C. 1997) (continuous-representation rule; malpractice accrual delayed until termination of representation)
Seed Co. Ltd. v. Westerman, 832 F.3d 325 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (policy objectives supporting continuous-representation rule)
Jones v. Lattimer, 29 F. Supp. 3d 5 (D.D.C. 2014) (continuous representation may extend across different tribunals when claims arise from same incident)
De May v. Moore & Bruce, LLP, 584 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D.D.C. 2008) (applied continuous-representation rule where separate proceedings related to same underlying matter)
Rocha v. Brown & Gould, LLP, 101 F. Supp. 3d 52 (D.D.C. 2015) (declined to apply continuous-representation rule where representation was formally compartmentalized)
Teltschik v. Williams & Jensen, PLLC, 683 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D.D.C. 2010) (factors courts consider in determining existence of attorney-client relationship)
Baright v. Willis, 151 Cal. App. 3d 303 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (California decision applying continuous-representation rule where retainer encompassed workers' compensation and third-party claims)