## Facts

- In April 1993, clients retained an attorney to commence a breach-of-contract action against a home inspector.
- The attorney did not file suit; the limitations period on the underlying contract claim expired in March 1994.
- After retention, the attorney did not keep the clients informed and avoided their inquiries about case status.
- In September 1997, in response to a disciplinary grievance, the attorney admitted he failed to commence the action before the limitations period expired and avoided discussion out of embarrassment.
- On December 5, 1997, the clients sued the attorney for legal malpractice in contract and tort based on the failure to timely commence the underlying action.

## Issues

1. Whether the malpractice claim was time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations because the alleged malpractice occurred when the attorney failed to file the underlying action before March 1994.
2. Whether the continuous-representation doctrine tolled the limitations period where the attorney never filed the underlying lawsuit but remained the clients’ attorney for that specific matter and did not disclose the error.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the complaint.
- The court held that, although malpractice generally accrues when committed, the continuous-representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations on these facts.
- The court concluded the malpractice action filed in December 1997 was timely because tolling continued at least until the attorney’s 1997 disclosure.

## Legal Principles

- A legal malpractice claim accrues when the malpractice is committed, not when the client discovers it.
- Continuous representation tolls the malpractice limitations period only when there is a mutual understanding that further representation is needed on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim.
- The doctrine is grounded in protecting an ongoing attorney-client relationship on the same matter and recognizing the client’s reliance on the attorney’s professional judgment to address the problem.
- Continuous representation can apply even if the underlying action was never commenced, where the attorney-client relationship on the discrete matter was not terminated and the attorney did not inform the client that representation had ended.

## Conclusion

Because the clients retained the attorney for a specific matter and the relationship concerning that matter continued without termination until the attorney admitted his failure in 1997, the continuous-representation doctrine tolled the three-year limitations period, making the December 1997 malpractice action timely.


Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d 164 (N.Y. 2001)