Client hires attorney for divorce, and the attorney works through the end of the divorce. There are ancillary matters (QDRO) that follow, and more than three years later, client is sued over the late husband’s life insurance policy.  She hires the same attorney, and is later sued for lega fees. She counterclaims for legal malpractice arsing from the divorce, not the insurance case.  Is the case late?

Supreme Court answers yes, in Ursprung v Verkowitz; 2011 NY Slip Op 31723(U); June 14, 2011
Supreme Court, Nassau County; and determines that there must be actual continuous representation, and not a general sense that the attorney is still representing client, albeit not in any actual litigation.  Her representation was litigative, not transactional.

:"Contrary to Ursprug’s contentions, the doctrine of continuous representation is
inapplicable to toll the statute of limitations in the instant action as the matrimonial action during
which attorney Verkowitz allegedly committed the malpractice was concluded on February 27
2004, and Verkowitz’s representation of the plaintiff for the matrimonial action ceased at that
time. The particular transaction which is the subject of this malpractice action had ended in
2004, even if one accepts that a general professional relationship continued. (See, Zaref v. Berk
& Michaels , 192 A.D.2d 346 595 N.Y.S.2d 772 (Ist Dept. 1993)). Furher, as the plaintiff
was no longer "acutely aware of such need for further representation on the specific subject
matter underlying the malpractice claim " the defendant’ s representation on the matter had ceased
at that time. (Shumsky v. Eisenstein 96 N.Y 2d 164, 750 N.E.2d 67 (2001); Carnevali
Herman 293 AD.2d 698, 742 NYS. 2d 85 (2d Dept. 2002)). Attorney Verkowitz
representation of Ursprug in the subsequent insurance matter was pursuant to a separate and
subsequent retainer agreement, which was entered three years after the matrimonial action which was concluded on February 27 2004. As such, the within action for legal malpractice is bared
by the expiration of the statute of limitations. Even accepting plaintiffs arguments that attorney  Verkowitz s inquiries regarding Chrstopher Ursprug’s QDRO filings on behalf of Ursprug are evidence of a continuation of the matrimonial matter, the administrative tasks related to the QDRO were completed on September 12 2006, when Verkowitz forwarded a copy of the August 18 2006 QDRO order to Ursprug. Accordingly, even accepting the later date of September 12, 2006 as the conclusion of Verkowitz s representation ofUrsprug for the matrimonial action, the within legal malpractice action, filed on January 24 2011 , is bared by the statute of limitations."