Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP
232 P.3d 980
| Or. | 2011Background
- Legal malpractice suit against Davis Wright Tremaine arising from settlement negotiations over a crop lien and contract dispute between plaintiff and the Wheelers.
- Plaintiff alleged Levie, defendant’s attorney, negligently negotiated/expressed the oral settlement, omitting a critical Missing Term.
- Plaintiff knew in February 2002 that the Wheelers hadn’t removed the lien and that he would suffer economic harm.
- Plaintiff contends Levie’s advice and assurances affected the timeliness of discovery of negligence.
- Trial court granted summary judgment finding the claim time-barred; court of appeals affirmed; supreme court granted review.
- Court analyzes when the legal malpractice claim accrued under the discovery rule to determine timeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did plaintiff’s malpractice claim accrue? | Accrual delayed until discovery of Levie’s negligence. | Accrual occurred no later than February 15, 2002, when harm and potential negligence were known. | Genuine factual dispute on accrual; not time-barred. |
| Did Levie’s assurances create a jury question on reasonable discovery? | Trust in lawyer’s assurances delayed awareness of negligence. | A reasonable person would have known by Feb. 15, 2002. | Yes, factual dispute; not summarily barred. |
| Did open-court recital of the settlement affect accrual timing? | Recital created expectation of immediate performance. | Silent as to time; no automatic accrual. | Material fact question remains for jury. |
| Could the plaintiff have sued the Wheelers or Levie earlier, affecting accrual? | Litigation against Wheelers or proof of breach could shift accrual. | Accrual tied to determination of the case and alleged negligence. | Record supports accrual timing as a jury issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davies v. Davies, 274 Or. 663 (Or. 1976) (establishes discovery rule for legal malpractice accrual, later event may trigger accrual)
- Gaston v. Parsons, 318 Or. 247 (Or. 1994) (trust/assurance from professional may affect reasonable discovery; factual question for trial)
- T.R. v. Boy Scouts of America, 344 Or. 282 (Or. 2008) (multiple potential tortfeasors; accrual may differ per defendant)
- Stevens v. Bispham, 316 Or. 221 (Or. 1993) (applies discovery rule to legal malpractice actions)
- Uptown Heights Assocs. v. Seafirst Corp., 320 Or. 638 (Or. 1995) (good faith/fair dealing affects performance expectations under contract)