Here is a case from California, reported by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP: “Lawyer’s Failure to Advise of Non-Representation Created Issue of Fact Regarding Continued Representation
Gabriela Gonzalez vs. Emelikei Kalu, 140 Cal. App. 4th 21, 43 Cal. Rptr. 3rd 866 (June 2006)
The defendant attorney agreed to handle plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim against her employer. The defendant filed an administrative complaint and did nothing further to advance the representation. The plaintiff neither contacted nor attempted to contact the defendant until three years later when she came to his office to retrieve her file for a separate litigation. At that time, she claims to have learned that defendant had not timely prosecuted her action. The California Court of Appeal found triable issues of fact as to when the representation ended for purposes of the “continuous representation” tolling provision under the statute.”