Would the words "mutual understanding" have made the difference in this case? Continuous representation by an attorney of a client requires actual work, a mutual understanding that further work has to be performed and a relationship of trust and confidence. In Landow v Snow Becker Krauss P.C. 2012 NY Slip Op 31971(U)    Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 18038/11 Judge: Denise L. Sher we see a $4 Million legal malpractice case dismissed on statute of limitations. Plaintiff argued continuous representation, and the court finally hung its decision on the following:

"For continuous representation doctrine to apply, for purposes of tolling limitations period for legal malpractice action, there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing and dependent relationship between client and attorney which often includes an attempt by attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice; its application is limited to instances in which attorney s involvement in case after alleged malpractice is for performance of the same or related services and is not merely continuation of general professional relationship (emphasis added). See Pellati v. Lite Lite 290 AD.2d 544, 736 N.Y.S.2d 419 (2d Dept. 2002). Also, referencing the language of the case cited by plaintiff Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 Y.2d 164, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365 (2001), under the doctrine of continuous representation, the three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice is tolled while the attorney continues represent the client in the same matter, after the alleged malpractice is committed (emphasis added). Firer, the parries must have a "mutual understanding" that further representation is needed with respect to the matter underlying the malpractice claim. See Hasty Hills Stables, Inc. v. Dorfman, Lynch, Knoebel Conway, LLP 52 AD.3d 566 860 N.Y.S.2d 182 (2d Dept. 2008). Since the Verified Complaint in the instant matter lacks any allegation of a "mutual understanding" between plaintiff and defendants of the need for further representationn regarding the tax opinion and/or DC transaction, the continuous representation doctrine does not apply to the instant matter. In fact, the Verified Complaint and supporting affidavit are devoid of any facts that occurred between any defendant and plaintiff regarding the DC transaction and/or the tax treatment thereof between the time period of2003 (when the alleged malpractice act was committed) and 2007 when defendant Meltzer Lippe was retained. Additionally, a legal malpractice cause of action accrues on the date the malpractice was committed, not when it was discovered. See Byron Chemical Co., Inc. v. Groman 61 AD. 909, 877 N.Y.S.2d 457 (2d Dept. 2009). In other words, the statute does not run from the time plaintiff received notice from the IRS in 2007. Accordingly, the malpractice claims of all defendants are dismissed as time-bared