New York Law Review

Tag: Glamm v. Allen

  • Glamm v. Allen, 5 N.Y.3d 93 (2005): The Continuous Representation Doctrine in Legal Malpractice

    Glamm v. Allen, 5 N.Y.3d 93 (2005)

    The continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute of limitations in a legal malpractice action when there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim.

    Summary

    This case addresses the application of the continuous representation doctrine to toll the statute of limitations in a legal malpractice claim. The plaintiff, Glamm, sued his attorneys, Allen, for malpractice related to a divorce proceeding. The New York Court of Appeals held that the continuous representation doctrine applied because the attorneys continued to represent Glamm after the divorce judgment was entered, and there was a mutual understanding that further representation was needed regarding the divorce. Therefore, the malpractice claim was not time-barred. The court remitted the case for consideration of other issues raised in the motion to dismiss.

    Facts

    Glamm retained Allen to represent him in a divorce proceeding. A judgment of divorce was entered on December 4, 1997. Allen’s representation of Glamm continued at least until June 1998. Glamm commenced a legal malpractice action against Allen in May 2001, alleging negligence in the handling of the divorce case.

    Procedural History

    The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the legal malpractice claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court initially ruled on the motion. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the malpractice claim was time-barred. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, reinstating the legal malpractice cause of action and remitting the case to the Supreme Court for consideration of other issues raised by the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations for Glamm’s legal malpractice claim, considering the ongoing representation by Allen after the divorce judgment.

    Holding

    Yes, because the continuous representation doctrine applies where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim, and such representation existed in this case.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on the established precedent that a legal malpractice action must be commenced within three years of accrual, subject to tolling by the continuous representation doctrine. The court cited McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d 295 (2002), stating that “[t]he continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute of limitations . . . where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim.” The court determined that Glamm’s cause of action accrued no later than December 4, 1997, when the divorce judgment was entered. However, because Allen’s representation continued until at least June 1998, and the action was commenced in May 2001, the malpractice claim was not time-barred. The Court emphasized the importance of ongoing attorney-client relationships in determining the applicability of the continuous representation doctrine, noting that it prevents disruption of the attorney-client relationship and avoids forcing a client to sue their attorney prematurely. The court did not address other causes of action as they were not raised before the Court of Appeals. The court’s decision ensures that clients who reasonably rely on their attorneys’ continued representation are not unfairly penalized by the statute of limitations, balancing the need for timely claims with the realities of ongoing legal engagements.

  • Glamm v. Allen, 57 N.Y.2d 87 (1982): Statute of Limitations Tolling in Legal Malpractice Cases Against Deceased Attorneys

    Glamm v. Allen, 57 N.Y.2d 87 (1982)

    In legal malpractice actions against the estate of a deceased attorney, the statute of limitations is tolled both by the continuous representation doctrine and by CPLR 210(b), which provides an 18-month tolling period after the attorney’s death if the malpractice cause of action existed prior to death.

    Summary

    Richard Glamm sued the estate of attorney Reinhart, alleging malpractice for failure to file a timely notice of claim against the City of Amsterdam. The alleged malpractice occurred when Reinhart failed to file a notice of claim within 90 days of Glamm’s injury in 1969. Reinhart died in 1976. The Court of Appeals held that the continuous representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations until Reinhart’s death. Furthermore, CPLR 210(b) provided an additional 18-month tolling period after Reinhart’s death, because the cause of action accrued when the notice of claim filing deadline passed during Reinhart’s representation. Thus, the action, commenced in 1980, was timely.

    Facts

    Richard Glamm was injured in April 1969 while assisting Amsterdam firefighters. Glamm hired attorney Reinhart to represent him. Reinhart filed a claim under the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law, believing this was the correct avenue for recovery, but did not file a notice of claim against the City of Amsterdam as required by General Municipal Law § 50-e. Glamm’s claim under the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law was ultimately denied in November 1976. Reinhart died in October 1976. Successor attorneys filed a late notice of claim, but it was rejected. Glamm then sued Reinhart’s estate for malpractice in April 1980, alleging failure to file a timely notice of claim.

    Procedural History

    The trial court denied the estate’s motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. The Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to the estate, reasoning that the statute of limitations expired three years after the executrix was appointed and that CPLR 210(b) was inapplicable. Glamm appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations in this legal malpractice action?

    2. Whether CPLR 210(b) applies to toll the statute of limitations for 18 months after the attorney’s death, given that the alleged malpractice occurred prior to death?

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute of limitations until the attorney-client relationship ends, which occurred at Reinhart’s death.

    2. Yes, because the cause of action for malpractice accrued when Reinhart failed to file a timely notice of claim, which was prior to his death; therefore, CPLR 210(b) applies.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that a malpractice action accrues at the date of the malpractice. Here, it occurred when Reinhart failed to file the notice of claim within the statutory 90-day period. The continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute of limitations because a client should not be expected to sue their attorney while the attorney is still representing them. The court quoted Greene v. Greene, 56 NY2d 86, 94, stating that a client has “a right to repose confidence in the professional’s ability and good faith, and realistically cannot be expected to question and assess the techniques employed or the manner in which the services are rendered.” The tolling ends when the representation ceases, in this case, at Reinhart’s death.

    Additionally, CPLR 210(b) tolls the statute for 18 months after the death of a person against whom a cause of action exists. The court emphasized that the malpractice cause of action must have existed before the attorney’s death for CPLR 210(b) to apply. Since the failure to file the notice of claim occurred before Reinhart’s death, the statute was tolled for 18 months after his death. “What is important is when the malpractice was committed, not when the client discovered it.” Therefore, combining the continuous representation toll and the CPLR 210(b) toll, Glamm’s action was timely.