Attorney's assurances to client that a Master's recommendation in divorce proceedings was incorrect served to toll the statute of limitations of legal malpractice action under the equitable tolling doctrine.

In this legal malpractice action, the attorney-defendant appealed a jury verdict entered against her in favor of the plaintiff, her former client in underlying divorce and support proceedings. The plaintiff alleged that the attorney-defendant failed to finalize an alimony agreement reached with his former wife, and the appointed Master then issued a recommendation which required the plaintiff to pay support in excess of the alimony agreement. The attorney-defendant then assured the plaintiff that the Master was incorrect in his recommendation. However, the trial court ultimately adopted the Master's recommendation in full. On appeal of the jury verdict in the legal malpractice action, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the trial court properly held as a matter of law that the equitable tolling doctrine served to toll the statute of limitations until the date the trial court adopted the Master's recommendation. In doing so, the court rejected the attorney-defendant's argument that the plaintiff should have known of his harm on the date of the Master's recommendation itself, reasoning that the plaintiff relied upon the attorney-defendants' assurances that the recommendation was incorrect. The court recognized that the trial court may have made a factual determination in its ruling, but that attorney-defendant waived her right to have the jury hear the issue by arguing that the trial court could determine the issue as a matter of law. The trial court did what the attorney-defendant requested but determined the issue against her.

Case Law Alerts - 2nd Quarter 2013