Consulting Another Attorney Starts the Clock

Posted on Updated on

Anne Anderson (“Anderson”) sued attorney Denise Kuzniewski (“Kuzniewski”) for legal malpractice during the dissolution of Anderson’s marriage.   Kuzniewski moved for summary judgment, arguing among other things that Anderson’s action was time-barred.  The motion was granted, and the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, affirmed on that basis.  It explained that, “the statute of limitations for attorney malpractice incorporates the discovery rule: an action must be filed within two years of when the plaintiff ‘knew or reasonably should have known of the injury for which damages are sought.’”  Id. at ¶ 28; 735 ILCS 5/13-214.3(b).  Here, Anderson filed her complaint on December 21, 2016.  However, she had expressed dissatisfaction with the dissolution of marriage judgment as early as March, 2011, and had consulted with another attorney about the judgment in October, 2011 because she “knew [the settlement] was not right.”  Id. at ¶ 12.  The Appellate Court explained that, “not only did this consultation start the limitations period (had it not started earlier), it ended any fraudulent concealment by defendant.”  Id. at ¶ 39.Anne Anderson (“Anderson”) sued attorney Denise Kuzniewski (“Kuzniewski”) for legal malpractice during the dissolution of Anderson’s marriage.   Kuzniewski moved for summary judgment, arguing among other things that Anderson’s action was time-barred.  The motion was granted, and the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, affirmed on that basis.  It explained that, “the statute of limitations for attorney malpractice incorporates the discovery rule: an action must be filed within two years of when the plaintiff ‘knew or reasonably should have known of the injury for which damages are sought.’”  Id. at ¶ 28; 735 ILCS 5/13-214.3(b).  Here, Anderson filed her complaint on December 21, 2016.  However, she had expressed dissatisfaction with the dissolution of marriage judgment as early as March, 2011, and had consulted with another attorney about the judgment in October, 2011 because she “knew [the settlement] was not right.”  Id. at ¶ 12.  The Appellate Court explained that, “not only did this consultation start the limitations period (had it not started earlier), it ended any fraudulent concealment by defendant.”  Id. at ¶ 39.

Anderson v. Kuzniewski, 2019 IL App (2d) 190020-U

(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s