Provides relative to continuous representation of a client in action for legal malpractice. (8/1/14) (OR NO IMPACT See Note)
Impact
The passage of SB559 is expected to create a more nuanced understanding of the time limits for legal claims against attorneys. Currently, the law sets a strict one-year limit from the discovery of the alleged malpractice, which can lead to cases being dismissed simply because the statute of limitations expired before a claim could be filed. By allowing continuous representation to interrupt the prescription period, the bill aims to provide more leeway for clients and ensure that they are not unduly penalized for their attorney's ongoing engagement.
Summary
Senate Bill 559 aims to amend the existing laws on legal malpractice by introducing provisions that recognize the concept of continuous representation between attorneys and their clients. The bill stipulates that if an attorney continuously represents a client regarding a specific matter, this ongoing representation will prevent the expiration of the time limit (known as prescription) for bringing a malpractice claim. This is significant as it provides additional time for clients to file claims when they believe their attorney has acted improperly or neglectfully in their case.
Sentiment
Overall, the sentiment surrounding SB559 appears to be cautiously optimistic among those supporting the legislation, as it promises to enhance client rights in malpractice cases. Proponents argue that it improves fairness in the legal system, empowering clients to seek justice even if they are in an extended attorney-client relationship. However, there may be concerns from some legal practitioners about the potential implications for malpractice liability and how this may affect professional conduct among attorneys.
Contention
Notable points of contention include the fear that extending the prescription period might encourage frivolous lawsuits against attorneys, complicating the legal landscape. Opponents may argue that the law could lead to increased litigation and uncertainty for attorneys, creating an environment where they are more vulnerable to claims, even if those claims might be unfounded. This inherent tension illustrates the balance that must be struck between protecting client rights and safeguarding attorneys from undue litigation.
Provides exclusion from coverage for medical malpractice by doctor practicing outside his specialty or hospital privileges. (8/1/16) (EG NO IMPACT See Note)