Sometimes the AD finds that a consent to change attorney is the terminating event for continuous representation and sometimes not. Ellison v Seltzer,  2022 NY Slip Op 05786
Decided on October 18, 2022  Appellate Division, First Department is a case where the “mutual understanding of the need for further representation” trumped the “failure to move to be relieved” standard.

“Supreme Court correctly determined that the legal malpractice claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214 [6]). While the claim accrued at the latest on September 23, 2016, the continuous representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations until December 8, 2016, when defendants informed plaintiff that they would not represent him on his appeal in the underlying employment action, but plaintiff did not commence this action until December 13, 2019 (see Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 170-171 [2001]). Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, the outstanding counterclaim in the employment action and defendants’ failure to move to be relieved in that action did not show a mutual understanding of a need for further representation (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 306 [2002]; Farina v Katsandonis, P.C., 197 AD3d 1033, 1033-34 [1st Dept 2021]; Hirsch v Fink, 89 AD3d 430, 431 [1st Dept 2011]).”