For purposes of the statute of limitations, a claim of attorney malpractice by a partnership is independent of a partner's prior malpractice claim
The Second District has upheld a demurrer to an entire complaint on the grounds that such is barred by the statute of limitations because the partnership's claim against their former counsel did not "relate back" to the prior date an individual partner filed his own malpractice claim. (Engel v. Pech (September 28, 2023) B324560.) The court further held that, although timely, the individual partner's claim was not viable since any actual damages were suffered by the partnership itself. The Hon. Maureen Duffy-Lewis, Judge Presiding, of the Los Angeles County Superior Court sustained the defendant attorney's demurer to the entire complaint, and the individual and partnership both appealed.
Key to this ruling was the fact the prior malpractice claim of the partner was, by way of amendment to the complaint, later expanded to include that of the partnership; as the appellate court explained:
A limited liability partnership and one of its partners retained a lawyer but limited the scope of representation to having the lawyer represent the partnership in a specific, ongoing case. After the partnership lost the case, the partner sued the lawyer for malpractice. In an amended complaint, the partnership was added as a plaintiff. The partner’s complaint was filed before the statute of limitations ran; the amendment was filed after. (Id., p. 2; original emphasis.)
It should be noted that the alleged malpractice by Pech related to his work representing an accounting partnership, Engel & Engel, LLP (referred to by the court as "the LLP") in an action against Wells Fargo. However, individual plaintiff and partner in the LLP, Jason Engel, was not named as an individual party to the suit against the bank.
In amending the partner's claim against Pech to also include the LLP, plaintiffs claimed the amendment "related back" to the date of filing the prior malpractice claim and therefore was proper even though it was beyond the one-year time-limit. The Second District disagreed, characterizing the LLP's claim as "independent" and noting this was not analogous to other instances where a complaint "related back" because a newly-added plaintiff was enforcing the same right as the original plaintiff:
An amendment adding a new plaintiff will not relate back to a prior complaint if the new plaintiff is “enforc[ing] an independent right” that imposes a “‘wholly distinct and different legal obligation against the defendant’” (Bartalo v. Superior Court (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 526, 533, italics omitted (Bartalo); Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 243 (Branick)). Because the partnership’s malpractice claims against the lawyer are distinct from—and in addition to—the partner’s malpractice claim, the partnership’s claims do not relate back and are untimely. (Id., p. 2; citation omitted.)
The Second District further noted the original complaint by the partner "misleadingly alleges that Engel himself. . . was. . . the party who prosecuted the Wells Fargo litigation" even though he was not. (Id., p. 5.)
As to the claim of Engel as an individual, the Second District found that even though both Engel and the LLP itself signed the retainer agreement with Pech, only the latter suffered damages. Writing for the majority, Justice Hoffstadt found this indicated only the LLP could bring a claim against Pech, given that the malpractice involved the Wells Fargo suit:
[T]he operative complaint is. . . explicitly limited to deficiencies in Pech’s representation during the Wells Fargo litigation, [meaning] the only entity that could have suffered damages as a result of that malpractice was the LLP, not Engel. (Id., p. 17.)
Tips for practitioners
Plaintiffs and their counsel should decide at the outset whom to include in the complaint and who has what particular claim. Counsel should be especially careful in this regard where the subject of the lawsuit is prior business dealings that are well-documented. Where there is such a trial of documents it is difficult to argue the plaintiff missed the statutory deadline to file because they were either 1) "ignorant" of the identity of a defendant, and/or 2) not aware of their specific role in the dealings between the parties.
Nonetheless, experience teaches that some counsel appear to rely far too heavily upon the general rule of "liberality" in amending pleadings and/or the "relation back" doctrine. These counsel wrongly assume they may add parties who have different roles in the subject transactions and, therefore lesser or greater damages, at any stage in the proceedings by simply filing an amended complaint.
Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment