1:13-cv-00202
S.D. Miss.Sep 16, 2014Background
- In 1999 Robert Lehman (a Louisiana attorney) retained Mississippi attorney Nicholas Van Wiser for a contract/construction dispute; Wiser filed suit in Hancock County Chancery Court in July 1999.
- Lehman repeatedly stressed urgency and the need for aggressive prosecution throughout 1999 and into early 2000.
- On March 1, 2000 Lehman sent a letter complaining about Wiser’s lack of communication and diligence; Wiser sent routine discovery-related letters through April 4, 2000.
- The Chancery Court file and the parties’ correspondence show no further activity or communication from April 2000 until March 2010.
- Lehman wrote to Wiser again in March/April 2010 and filed a Mississippi Bar complaint in July 2010 (which was dismissed in October 2010).
- Lehman filed this legal-malpractice suit on April 26, 2013; Mississippi law (Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49) applies and sets a three-year limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the malpractice statute of limitations accrue? | Lehman contends routine March/April 2000 correspondence left doubt and he did not know of abandonment until after his 2010 Bar complaint; thus accrual is disputed. | Wiser argues accrual occurred by March 1, 2000 (Lehman’s complaint letter) or, at latest, shortly after April 2000, so the claim is time-barred. | Court held claim accrued before April 2010; reasonable diligence would have revealed negligence well before 2010, so suit filed in 2013 is time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Sneed, 638 So. 2d 1252 (Miss. 1994) (establishes discovery rule for accrual of legal-malpractice claims)
- Channel v. Loyacono, 954 So. 2d 415 (Miss. 2007) (reaffirms discovery-rule accrual standard)
- Champluvier v. Beck, 909 So. 2d 1061 (Miss. 2004) (applies discovery rule in malpractice context)
- Evans v. Howell, 121 So. 3d 919 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (acknowledges discovery-rule accrual principle)
- Bennett v. Hill-Boren, P.C., 52 So. 3d 364 (Miss. 2011) (explains discovery rule protects laypersons and may not apply where claimant is an attorney)