The Missed Statute of Limitations on a Slip-and-Fall
Attorney Reyes agreed in writing to represent Dana in a slip-and-fall against a grocery chain. The incident occurred on March 3, 2022. Dana signed a contingency agreement giving Reyes 33% of any recovery. Reyes filed nothing for 14 months, then sent Dana a letter stating she had 'decided to close the file' and urging her to consult another lawyer 'promptly.' Dana did nothing for another year. On May 1, 2024, new counsel told her the two-year personal injury limitations period had expired on March 3, 2024. Dana now wants to sue Reyes. The grocery store's insurer had offered $18,000 before suit; Dana's medical bills were $9,400 and her lost wages $2,100. Assume the underlying claim was meritorious and the store was fully insured.
1. Is Reyes liable for legal malpractice, and what must Dana prove to establish the breach element?
Read the worked answer
Likely yes, subject to proof. Dana must show four elements: (1) an attorney-client relationship and duty, (2) breach, (3) causation of actual loss, and (4) damages. The relationship is undisputed - the written contingency agreement establishes it.
Breach turns on the standard of care: a reasonably competent attorney would have filed within the two-year period or, at minimum, formally withdrawn and given clear written notice of the deadline. Reyes's letter telling Dana to consult another lawyer 'promptly' is weak - it does not identify the March 3, 2024 date. Expert testimony is generally required to establish the standard of care unless the negligence is so obvious a layperson can assess it. Letting a limitations period lapse with no calendar entry is close to that line, but expect the defense to demand an expert.
Reyes may argue Dana's own failure to act was a superseding cause. That defense is weak because the client reasonably relied on counsel's advice, and the letter did not flag the deadline. The date of the letter (roughly May 2023) still left ten months to refile - a fact that cuts against Reyes.
2. How should Dana's damages be measured, and what role does the $18,000 settlement offer play?
Read the worked answer
Damages are the amount Dana would have recovered but for the negligence, less the costs of the original action, subject to the 'case within a case' requirement. Dana must essentially prove the underlying personal injury claim as if trying it: liability of the store, her injuries, and the recoverable damages.
The $18,000 pre-suit offer is evidence of what the claim was worth, but it is not a cap and not conclusive. A jury may find the claim was worth more - medical bills of $9,400 plus lost wages of $2,100 plus pain and suffering. It may also find the offer generous relative to the actual provable injury.
Two adjustments matter. First, the contingency fee: because Dana would have paid Reyes 33%, the malpractice recovery should be reduced by that amount she would not have received anyway - otherwise she gets a windfall. Second, Reyes is entitled to a setoff for any fee already earned or any costs not incurred. If the case-within-a-case yields, say, $30,000, Dana's net loss is roughly $20,100 (67% of the recovery), not the full $30,000.
3. Reyes claims Dana's one-year delay after the letter caused the loss. Analyze the comparative fault and causation issues.
Read the worked answer
This is the heart of the defense. Reyes will argue that the May 2023 letter, though vague, put Dana on notice, and her own inaction for a year was an intervening cause. Courts generally treat a client's reliance on counsel as reasonable, especially where counsel has not formally withdrawn or clearly stated the deadline. A letter saying 'consult another lawyer promptly' is ambiguous and does not tell the client a hard date.
Even so, comparative fault may reduce damages in jurisdictions that apply it to legal malpractice. If a jury assigns Dana some percentage - say 20% - the recovery is reduced accordingly. The key factual question is what Dana knew and when. If the letter was received and she simply procrastinated, the defense gains traction. If the letter was unclear or she reasonably believed Reyes was still handling the matter, it does not.
On causation, the burden is on Dana to show the underlying claim would have succeeded. Because the store was insured and the claim meritorious, that hurdle is manageable. Reyes cannot escape by pointing to Dana's delay unless that delay independently caused the loss; here the limitations period was already running and Reyes controlled the calendar.