## Facts

- Denise Gilles underwent colonoscopies on February 26 and February 28, 1996; after the second procedure she suffered a perforated colon requiring emergency surgery and later developed a hydropneumothorax during recovery.
- In early April 1996, Gilles consulted attorney Arthur L. Raynes of Wiley, Malehorn & Sirota about pursuing a medical-malpractice claim; Raynes admitted an attorney–client relationship existed and Gilles relied on him to protect her interests.
- Raynes investigated the matter and sought expert review; after initially lacking supportive expert proof, he later obtained a favorable medical opinion.
- Raynes decided to terminate the representation roughly six months after obtaining favorable expert support, citing concerns including likely unprofitability and fee issues.
- Raynes sent a termination letter advising Gilles to “immediately” seek new counsel due to the statute of limitations, but did not state that only a few weeks remained.
- Gilles did not retain substitute counsel or file suit before the statute of limitations expired, and her medical-malpractice claim became time-barred.
- Gilles sued Raynes and the firm for legal malpractice, alleging voluntary withdrawal without good cause attributable to her and failure to take reasonable measures to prevent the limitations bar.
- The Law Division granted defendants summary judgment; Gilles appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney who voluntarily withdraws from representation without good cause attributable to the client has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect the client’s interests when a statute of limitations is imminent.
2. Whether, viewing the record favorably to Gilles, she produced sufficient evidence of breach and proximate causation to defeat summary judgment on her legal-malpractice claim.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the summary judgment for defendants and remanded.
- The court held Gilles presented a prima facie case permitting a jury to find: (a) an attorney–client relationship; (b) voluntary withdrawal without good cause attributable to the client; and (c) failure to take adequate steps to protect Gilles from the impending limitations bar.
- The court concluded breach and causation could not be resolved as a matter of law on the record and were for the factfinder.

## Legal Principles

- Legal malpractice requires proof of an attorney–client relationship, breach of the duty of care, and proximate causation of damages.
- When an attorney withdraws from representation, particularly voluntarily and without good cause attributable to the client, the attorney must take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the client’s rights.
- Where a limitations deadline is near, reasonable protective steps may include sufficiently specific notice of the time remaining and a meaningful opportunity to obtain substitute counsel, or other measures to preserve the claim.
- On summary judgment, the nonmovant is entitled to favorable inferences; if the record supports a triable dispute on breach and causation, summary judgment is improper.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that Gilles’s evidence could support a finding that her attorneys ended representation close to the statute of limitations without adequately protecting her ability to timely file, and that disputed questions of breach and causation required further proceedings rather than summary dismissal.


Gilles v. Wiley, Malehorn & Sirota, 783 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001)