Cockey v. Mead

When it comes to legal malpractice claims, a court must consider the time when a cause of action accrues to determine when the statute of limitations starts running. The limitation period starts when the client knows or should have known every fact necessary to support their right to judgment. Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or 270, 277 (2011).

Plaintiff appealed a judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant, arguing that the claim was not time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations, and claiming that Defendant committed malpractice during the guardianship proceeding in which a guardian was appointed as a settlement. On appeal, Plaintiff assigned error in the trial court's ruling in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff argued that Defendant's conduct caused damages that could be recognized legally, such as fees for guardianship, attorneys, and other professionals, due to negligence. When it comes to legal malpractice claims, a court must consider the time when a cause of action accrues to determine when the statute of limitations starts running. The limitation period starts when the client knows or should have known every fact necessary to support their right to judgment. Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or 270, 277 (2011). The Court determined that Plaintiff knew about the alleged negligence that caused them harm more than two years before filing the malpractice claim. Since there was no genuine issue of material fact, the trial court correctly concluded that the action was time-barred. Affirmed.