Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

defendantattorneystatutehearingmalpracticestatute of limitationslegal malpractice
defendantstatutemalpracticestatute of limitationslegal malpractice

Related Cases

Johnson v. Proskauer Rose LLP, 129 A.D.3d 59, 9 N.Y.S.3d 201, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03626
View Case »
Mathews v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc., 260 F.3d 239, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 10,132
View Case »
Peterson v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 792 F.3d 789, 92 Fed.R.Serv.3d 249, 61 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 63
View Case »
People v. Ratliff, 41 Cal.3d 675, 715 P.2d 665, 224 Cal.Rptr. 705
View Case »
In re Hall County Grand Jury Proceedings, 175 Ga.App. 349, 333 S.E.2d 389
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Therrien v. Sullivan, 153 N.H. 211, 891 A.2d 560

Facts

Robert Therrien was convicted of aggravated felonious sexual assault and served five years in prison. After his conviction, he sought post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Initially denied, a subsequent evidentiary hearing found that his counsel had provided constitutionally deficient representation, leading to the vacating of his conviction. The State declined to reprosecute, prompting Therrien to file a legal malpractice action against his former attorney, Mark Sullivan.

Robert Therrien was convicted of aggravated felonious sexual assault and served five years in prison.

Issue

When does a criminal defendant's cause of action against his or her defense counsel accrue in the context of a civil action for criminal legal malpractice?

When does a criminal defendant's cause of action against his or her defense counsel accrue in the context of a civil action for criminal legal malpractice?

Rule

New Hampshire follows the 'bright-line' approach, which states that an action for criminal legal malpractice does not accrue until the criminal defendant receives post-conviction relief.

New Hampshire follows the 'bright-line' approach, which states that an action for criminal legal malpractice does not accrue until the criminal defendant receives post-conviction relief.

Analysis

The court applied the 'bright-line' approach by determining that the statute of limitations for a criminal legal malpractice claim does not begin until the defendant has obtained post-conviction relief. This approach aligns with the need for a valid claim of actual innocence, which cannot be established while a valid conviction remains in place. The court emphasized the importance of allowing the judicial system to manage its resources effectively by preventing collateral attacks on valid convictions in subsequent civil proceedings.

The court applied the 'bright-line' approach by determining that the statute of limitations for a criminal legal malpractice claim does not begin until the defendant has obtained post-conviction relief.

Conclusion

The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that Therrien's legal malpractice action could not proceed until he had received post-conviction relief, thereby affirming the district court's certification of the question.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that Therrien's legal malpractice action could not proceed until he had received post-conviction relief.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the defendant, Mark Sullivan, as the court ruled that Therrien's malpractice claim could not proceed until he obtained post-conviction relief.

The prevailing party was the defendant, Mark Sullivan, as the court ruled that Therrien's malpractice claim could not proceed until he obtained post-conviction relief.

You must be