A Matter Of Continuity

The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendants in a legal malpractice action on statute of limitations grounds

We note that our Supreme Court and this Court have continuously declined to adopt the continuous representation doctrine in New Mexico. See Sharts, 1994-NMSC114, ¶ 18 (noting that “[w]e are not inclined to adopt the [continuous representation] doctrine at this time”); LaMure, 1996-NMCA-099, ¶¶ 28, 34 (stating that “New Mexico has considered, but has not applied, the continuous representation doctrine in attorney malpractice cases” before concluding that “[t]hus, even if we were free to question the Supreme Court’s recent, express disinclination to adopt the continuous relationship exception, we would not do so in this case” (citation omitted)); Martinez-Sandoval v. Kirsch, 1994-NMCA-115, ¶ 26, 118 N.M. 616, 884 P.2d 507 (noting that while other jurisdictions have adopted the continuous representation doctrine, New Mexico authorities establish that “the statute begins to run once [a plaintiff] knows or should know sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action”).

Rather

commencement of the statute of limitations is not bound to the period of representation, but rather when the client discovers or should have discovered the purportedly deficient representation. To the extent that Plaintiffs contend they did not know the facts necessary to successfully prosecute their claims until after June 14, 2017, we note that “[c]ertainty that the attorney breached the duty of care is not required; it is enough for the client to know ‘there may have been serious errors in the attorney’s work’ which resulted in injury.”

(Mike Frisch)