In Legal Malpractice the question of a statute of limitations often arises. Legal malpractice accrues on the date that the mistake is made, not on the day plaintiff discovers it. Continuous representation allows plaintiff to continue to use the attorney, and does not require an immediate suit, In Aronov v Law Off. of Roman Popik, P.C.;2011 NY Slip Op 31739(U);  ;Sup Ct, NY County;Docket Number: 116100/09;Judge: Debra A. James we see one variant of the problem.

Attorney represented client in the drafting of a partnership break-up and negligently drafted the non-compete portion so that it failed to restrain the retiring partner from competing. It mistakenly restrained the remaining partners from competing against the retiring partner.

Law firm then represented the clients in a series of related litigations, but there were big time gaps between. Was this continuous?

"It is undisputed that the defendants not only drafted the agreement that is the source of the malpractice obligations, but represented the plaintiffs in subsequent litigation concerning
the agreement. appeals resulted in summary judgment being awarded against the
plaintiffs dismissing their claims in May 2005. over the agreement apparently recommenced in August 2008 when the former partner sought to restore the action to t h e calendar and sought judgment on counterclaims against the plaintiffs. On June 2, 2009, the Appellate Division, Second Department awarded The initial phase of the litigation including The litigation summary judgment against the plaintiffs on monetary claims under the agreement. The defendants represented the plaintiffs in the entirety of the litigation. This court therefore finds that the plaintiffs are entitled
to the application of the continuous representation toll and that their claim f o r malpractice is timely. The defendants continuously represented plaintiffs w i t h respect to the agreement
provisions that are the subject of the malpractice claims (see Antoniu v Ahearn, 134 AD2 d 151, 152 -153 [1st Dept 1987) and therefore defendants motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) must be granted" (typo?)