A Law Licence Is Necessary, But Not Sufficient, to Invoke CCP § 340.6

Lee v. Hanley, No. S220775 (Cal. Aug. 20, 2015)

Code of Civil Procedure § 340.6 provides a one-year-from-discovery statute of limitations in an “action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other than for actual fraud, arising in the performance of professional services[.]” As reported here, here, here, here, here, and here, there is a longstanding split of authority over how broadly to read the statute, particularly with respect to certain torts that, if committed by anyone other than an attorney, might have a much longer limitations period. 

Some courts have read the statute literally, to include, for instance, a malicious prosecution action against a lawyer. Others, including the case on review here, have looked to the spirit of the statute and limited its application to cases of attorney professional negligence. The California Supreme Court stepped in to resolve the split.

Mind Those Pro Hacs

 Golba v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., No G049611 (D4d3 Jul. 24, 2015)

This case is a consumer class action against a retailer for collecting zip codes. It eventually settled for a crappy coupon settlement. The laboring oar of the plaintiff work had been performed by an out-of-state attorney from Chicago. The local counsel who signed the complaint filed a pro hac vice motion—including a declaration that the Chicago attorney hadn’t been admitted pro hac in California in the last two years. But he failed to pay the required fee and inform the state bar, so the motion was denied. Unfortunately, nobody checked on the status of the motion, and plaintiffs proceeded as if the application were granted.