The statute of limitations exists in part because of the human need to get things behind us.  For commerce and (in general) life to keep on the law imposes a bright-line, specific period of time, after which it’s just too late.  To be fair, even when some are disenfranchised, its a good idea.

In legal malpractice, the statute of limitations is 3 years.  An exception to the strict time-keeping analysis is that of of continuous representation.  Here is an example and an explanation.

 Hadda v Lissner & Lissner LLP    2012 NY Slip Op 06736    Decided on October 9, 2012   Appellate Division, First Department   "Defendants made out a prima facie showing that the three-year statutory limitations period (CPLR 214[6]) expired before this legal malpractice action was commenced in July 2010. Plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact whether the doctrine of continuous representation applied here to toll the limitations period (see Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87, 94 [1982]; CLP Leasing Co., LP v Nessen, 12 AD3d 226 [1st Dept 2004]). The only evidence plaintiffs submitted on this issue was an affidavit by the husband of one of the plaintiffs, not a party to plaintiffs’ retainer agreement with defendants, stating that he spoke to the individual defendant four times between January and May 2007. Even assuming the husband had the authority to speak for plaintiffs, the intermittent telephone contact between himself and defendants does not constitute "clear indicia of an ongoing, developing and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney" or of "a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim" (see Matter of Merker, 18 AD3d 332, 332-333 [1st Dept 2005] [internal quotation marks omitted])."