Monday, October 28, 2019

Seeking appellate counsel doesn't toll statute

Here's a unpub'd case from 1/5, in which the first paragraph spells it all out:
In this legal malpractice action, [Plaintiff/Appellant] contends that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of his former attorney, [Defendant]. The court held that [Plaintiff]’s suit is barred by the statute of limitations. The sole issue here is whether, after unequivocally telling [][Plaintiff] that he would not represent him further, [Defendant]’s efforts to help him find an appellate attorney tolled the limitations period. We hold they did not, and we therefore affirm.
Also of interest, Cory Webster points out this published opinion from 1/1 on Friday which has the following footnote 2:
  • Before oral argument, we issued a tentative opinion that is substantively identical to the final version. (See Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct., rule 15(b).) In response, [Respondent]  stated that it was “willing[] to accept the Court’s disposition for this matter.”
And see this unpub from 2/1 today, which begins nicely with:
Legal jurisprudence is riddled with distinctions between substance and procedure. Sometimes, however, procedure is substance, as is the case here. Plaintiff and appellant []’s failure to follow the most basic appellate procedures compels our disposition affirming the judgment below.