Legal malpractice claims often consist of a specific claim of malpractice, a breach of fiduciary duty and a breach of contract.  In a setting (say, Connecticut and New York) where the acts occur in Connecticut and the attorney is sued in New York, the borrowing statute (CPLR 202) comes into play.  In Capone v LDH Mgt. Holdings LLC  2020 NY Slip Op 30013(U)
January 2, 2020 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 651794/2015 Judge Jennifer G. Schecter explains:

“”When a nonresident sues on a cause of action accruing outside New York, CPLR 202 requires the cause of action to be timely under the limitation periods of both New York and the jurisdiction where the cause of action accrued” (Global Fin. Corp. v Triarc Corp., 93 NY2d 525, 528 [1999]). Defendants are Delaware LLCs with a principal place of business in Connecticut, which is where Scheinman worked for them and ommitted
the alleged malpractice (see Oxbow Calcining USA Inc. v Am. Indus. Partners, 96 AD3d 646, 651 [1st Dept 2012]). Though defendants’ counterclaims accrued in Connecticut, there is no need to address their timeliness under Connecticut law because they are clearly time-barred under New York law (see Veritas Capital Mgmt., L.L. C. v Campbell,
82 AD3d 529 [1st Dept 2011] [“breach of fiduciary duty claim is barred unless it is timely under the shorter of the New York or Connecticut statute of limitations”]). ”

“Defendants allege that Scheinman, while serving as their in-house counsel, provided legal advice to Capone that helped him strategically in asserting the claims that are the basis of this lawsuit. They state a claim for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty–both of which have a three-year statute of limitations because defendants exclusively seek monetary damages (IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 NY3d 132, 139 [2009]; Matter of R.M Kliment & Frances Hals band, Architects, 3 NY3d
538, 541 [2004]). Defendants cannot recast the claim as one for breach of contract to avail themselves of the longer six-year limitations period (Johnson v Proskauer Rose LLP, 129 AD3d 59, 68 [1st Dept 2015], citing Kliment, 3 NY3d at 541-42; see Risk Control Assocs. -Ins. Group. v Lebowitz, 15.1 AD3d 527, 528 [1st Dept 2017]). It is. undisputed that Scheinman’ s conduct that gave rise to defendants’ counterclaims
. occurred in 2011, so by 2015, when this action was commenced, the counterclaims were time-barred.”