Here is a fairly long discussion of the statute of limitations in legal malpractice in Alabama. They recognize the interesting question of whether the S/L starts to run before damage occures.  For example, what if there is a mistake in creation of a will, but the will is not yet probated?  Other examples are where there are problems in a deed or easement, but the house has not yet been re-sold.  In any event, here is a well written discussion.

 

Here is an interesting blog blurb from a Florida Torts publication: "The Week in Torts"

"Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Edison, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D2623 (Fla. 2d DCA October 20, 2006):

In this legal malpractice case, the court reminded us that while the waiver of the attorney client and work product privileges is not favored in Florida, all personal privileges may be waived by the client. It then reminded us of the “at issue” doctrine, which states that when a party has filed a claim based upon a matter ordinarily privilege, the proof of which will necessarily require that the privileged matter be offered into evidence, the person waives his or her right to insist in pre-trial discovery that the matter is privileged. Still, the party did not waive the attorney client privilege merely by bringing or defending a lawsuit. Waiver occurs when a party raises a claim that will necessarily require proof by way of a privileged communication. Thus, for waiver to occur under the “at issue” doctrine, the proponent of a privilege must make a claim or raise a defense based upon the privileged matter, and the proponent must necessarily use the privileged information in order to establish its claim or defense.

The court also discussed the “selective disclosure” doctrine which states that a party may not insist upon the protection of the privilege for damaging communications while disclosing other selected communications that are self-serving. Ultimately, this court found the order compelling disclosure of the disputed documents departed from the essential requirements of law. "

Parents and children entered into a real estate sale of the family home from parents to children in order to save it from foreclosure.  One attorney, who himself recognized the problem of representing both seller and buyer, did so nevertheless. 

The big problem came to light years later when a "side deal" was unenforceable because of the statute of frauds.  The question in this case is whether a regular or discovery statute of limitations applied.  Here:  the discovery statute.  The case.

 

Tampa now has a self-help law shop.  What they sell is somewhat unclear, but it appears that they sell kits for wills, and other simple legal transactions.  Previously, they tried to help with a dental malpractice, only to fall short and be fined.  Will legal malpractice self-help kits be next?  The article.