Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantattorneylawyernegligencestatuteappealtrialsummary judgmentmalpracticeleasestatute of limitationslegal malpractice

plaintifflawyerstatuteappealsummary judgmentmalpracticestatute of limitationslegal malpractice

Related Cases

Stevens v. Bispham, 316 Or. 221, 851 P.2d 556

Facts

The plaintiff was convicted of multiple criminal charges and sentenced to eight and a half years in prison. After serving time, his convictions were vacated when another individual confessed to the crimes. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a legal malpractice claim against his attorney, alleging negligence in his defense. The attorney moved for summary judgment, claiming the action was filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations, but the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, leading to this appeal.

Plaintiff, charged with three counts of Robbery I, three counts of Menacing, and one count of Public Indecency, was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for eight and one-half years.

Issue

At what point does the statute of limitations for legal malpractice begin to run with respect to a lawyer's defense of a client who has been convicted in a criminal case?

Rule

The statute of limitations for legal malpractice does not begin to run until the plaintiff has been exonerated of the criminal offense through reversal on direct appeal, through post-conviction relief proceedings, or otherwise.

We hold that it does not begin to run until the plaintiff has been exonerated of the criminal offense through reversal on direct appeal, through post-conviction relief proceedings, or otherwise.

Analysis

The court determined that the plaintiff's claim for legal malpractice could not accrue until he was exonerated of the criminal charges. The court emphasized that the legal framework surrounding criminal convictions in Oregon provides extensive protections for defendants, and it would be inappropriate to allow a malpractice claim to proceed while the conviction remains valid. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not suffered legally cognizable harm until his conviction was overturned.

Respecting the legislature's comprehensive criminal justice construct means, at a minimum, that it is inappropriate to permit a person who has been convicted of a criminal offense to assert in the courts a claim for legal malpractice in connection with that conviction unless and until the person has challenged successfully the conviction through the direct appeal or post-conviction processes now provided by Oregon law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the action did not accrue for statute of limitations purposes until the date on which the conviction was set aside and the client was released.

We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, but on different grounds.

Who won?

The plaintiff prevailed in the case because the court ruled that the statute of limitations for his legal malpractice claim did not begin until his conviction was overturned.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that there existed a genuine issue of material fact regarding when plaintiff's claim had accrued and, therefore, that summary judgment was not appropriate.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Virzi v. Grand Trunk Warehouse and Cold Storage Co., 571 F.Supp. 507, 37 Fed.R.Serv.2d 864

Levine v. Committee on Admissions and Grievances of U. S. District Court for District of Columbia, 328 F.2d 519, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 218

U.S. v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194, 81 A.F.T.R.2d 98-820, 98-1 USTC P 50,230, 39 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1189

Hopson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 232 F.R.D. 228, 97 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 617, 63 Fed.R.Serv.3d 582

McKinley v. State, 45 N.E.3d 25