Jensen v. Young
245 P.3d 731
Utah2010Background
- Dr. Jensen sues attorney Young for legal malpractice for missing the statute of limitations on defamation claims against Channel 4.
- Channel 4 broadcasts in 1995–1996 alleged Jensen illegally prescribed drugs; district investigation followed; Jensen’s employment terminated after the first broadcast.
- Jensen met Young in Sept. 1995; Young showed interest in representation but delayed taking the case pending the Department’s outcome; no retainer signed then.
- Nov. 12, 1996 Jensen provided Young with a transcript of the third broadcast; Young allegedly urged to file a complaint; Apr. 9, 1997 fee agreement signed.
- June 27, 1997 Young filed suit against Channel 4; he later missed the statute of limitations for defamation claims; Jensen’s subsequent malpractice claim arose from that missed deadline.
- District court dismissed some claims; Jensen’s underlying false light/defamation verdicts later vacated or reduced; Jensen filed a malpractice action on Feb. 5, 2007.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Jensen’s malpractice claims timely under the four-year limit? | Jensen argues the discovery rule tolls until adverse judgment. | Young argues claims accrued when the underlying statute expired and were time-barred. | Malpractice claims are untimely; four-year limit expired before filing. |
| Does the discovery rule toll Jensen's malpractice claims? | Discovery rule should apply because injury was not fully known until adverse outcome. | Discovery rule does not apply since Jensen knew or should have known of injury and potential malpractice earlier. | Discovery rule does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Howard, 970 P.2d 1282 (Utah 1998) (accrual begins when last element of action occurs; informs when malpractice accrues)
- Wagner v. Sellinger, 847 A.2d 1151 (D.C.2004) (injury in malpractice context defined as loss of right/remedy)
- Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop, 156 P.3d 806 (Utah 2007) (threshold knowledge for discovery rule and awareness of potential malpractice)
- Bennett v. Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough, 70 P.3d 17 (Utah 2003) (injury element defining damages in legal malpractice)
- Jensen v. Sawyers, 130 P.3d 325 (Utah 2005) (idler on vacatur of verdict affecting underlying claims)