Continuous representation tolls the statute of limitations, and requires actual work, a mutual understanding between client and attorney of the need for the actual work along with a mutual relationship of trust and confidence. In RJR Mech. Inc. v Ruvoldt 2019 NY Slip Op 01844
Decided on March 14, 2019 Appellate Division, First Department some of that was missing.
“The statute of limitations on a cause of action for legal malpractice is three years (see CPLR 214). Contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, the claim was not tolled by the continuous representation doctrine. Generally, tolling under the continuous representation doctrine “end[s] once the client is informed or otherwise put on notice of the attorney’s withdrawal from representation” (Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 171 ).
Moreover, there was not a “mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim” (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 306 ).”