The principal of "continued representation" in Legal Malpractice is that the statute of limitations does not start to run upon the making of a mistake,  while the attorney continues to represent the client.  "The statue of limitations sounding in legal malpractice is tolled until the completion of the attorney’s ongoing representation concerning the matter out of

ROBERTO BERAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, -v.- STEPHANIE M. CARVLIN, ROBERT C. GOTTLIEB, MARK STEIN, THE FIRM FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER, AND JACOBSON, CHARLES A. ROSS, THE FIRM OF BRAFMAN & ROSS, Defendants-Appellees.;No. 07-2514-cv;UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT;2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 19805

is a prime  example of  pro-se litigation in legal malpractice.  It

Collateral Estoppel and Legal Malpractice have an interesting intertwining existence.  Put briefly, once an attorney is awarded a legal fee [by a court, an arbitrator, or a judicial hearing officer] a subsequent legal malpractice case fails on the basis that a court has already implicitly determined that there can be no legal malpractice, because no

Legal Malpractice in Hollywood should come as no surprise.  We’ve commented on the widespread omnipresence of legal malpractice litigation, but had no idea we would be quoting Variety on the subject.  Here is their report on legal malpractice and the "9 to 5" screen, stage and trust saga as well as the cult classic Harold

As the economy has sunk, it is expected that legal malpractice cases will increase.  One reason is that cases previously thought to be unworthy will garner new luster; another is that in commercial circumstances there will be opportunities for cases.  Here is one example which did not work out for plaintiff.  As more sub-prime lending