John Leeman Isaacs and Susan Gail Isaacs v. Robert G. Schleier, Jr., and Schleier & Brown, P.C., 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 9532

Isaacs purchased Hallsville Dragway in 1998; Schleier drafted sale documents and loan instruments for that transaction.
In 2002 Isaacs sought to sell to Bishop; Schleier prepared documents for that sale and was listed as trustee with an on-demand feature in the note that could trigger acceleration.
Isaacs’ deed of trust did not include the insecurity clause, and the on-demand feature was not in the Isaacs’ 1998 deed of trust.
Bishop later sued Isaacs, Schleier, and Schleier & Brown in Harrison County (the Harrison County litigation) asserting multiple claims including fraud, real estate issues, and professional negligence; Harrison County verdict found dual representation and damages against Schleier for Bishop.
Isaacs later filed a Gregg County suit (September 26, 2005) against Schleier and the firm alleging breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and constructive fraud related to Schleier’s handling of the prior transactions.
The Gregg County trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment on statute-of-limitations defenses; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the claims are malpractice claims barred by the two-year statute of limitations	Isaacs argue discovery rule/fraudulent concealment tolling applies	Schleier argues claims are classic malpractice/time-barred	Yes; claims are malpractice-based and barred by 2-year limit.
Whether discovery rule tolls accrual for legal malpractice here	Discovery rule applies; dual-representation facts discovered in 2002	Discovery rule does not apply; accrual in 2002 with Bishop petition	No; accrual occurred in October 2002; discovery rule not applicable.
Whether Hughes tolling applies to toll the limitations period	Hughes tolling should delay limitations until underlying litigation resolves	Hughes tolling does not apply to transactional malpractice	Does not apply; not within Hughes tolling scope.
Whether the asserted claims can be treated as separate malpractice claims rather than non-malpractice theories	Claims framed as breach of contract/fiduciary duty/constructive fraud; not all are malpractice	All claims are essentially malpractice claims	Claims are properly characterized as legal malpractice claims.
Whether tolling or other defenses could salvage otherwise time-barred claims	Fraudulent concealment/discovery tolling save the suit	No tolling salvages the claims; accrual 2002; suit 2005 idle	No tolling salvages; time-barred.

Murphy v. Mullin, Hoard & Brown, L.L.P., 168 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (burden on limitations in malpractice claims; discovery applies to accrual; tolling analyzed)
Kimleco Petroleum, Inc. v. Morrison & Shelton, 91 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (malpractice vs. nonmalpractice framing; fracturing not allowed)
Goffney v. Rabson, 56 S.W.3d 186 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (distinguishes fiduciary-duty vs. malpractice claims; focus on representation quality)
Greathouse v. McConnell, 982 S.W.2d 165 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (malpractice vs. fiduciary/deception claims; professional negligence focus)
Apex Towing Co. v. Tolin, 41 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2001) (applies discovery rule to malpractice claims in certain contexts)
Hughes v. Mahaney & Higgins, 821 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. 1991) (tolling for malpractice actions arising from litigation)
Mullin v. Hoard & Brown, L.L.P., 168 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (Hughes tolling limitations in transactional malpractice contexts)
Trousdale v. Henry, 261 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (fraudulent concealment; discovery principles in tolling)
Gulf Coast Investment Corp. v. Brown, 821 S.W.2d 159 (Tex. 1991) (limits tolling when malpractice occurs outside of litigation; distinguish transactional work)