Ethics Statute of Limitations Continued from page 35


statute of limitations. See, e.g., Keef v. Widuch, 747 N.E.2d 992, 998-1000 (Ill. App. 2001). In Maryland, effective limitation of an attorney’s representation requires compliance with MRPC 1.2, and the Keef Court held that an attorney does not comply with RPC 1.2 without advising the client about the nature of other types of claim as to which the attorney will not provide representation. MRPC 1.4 is also applicable to advising clients regarding applicable statutes of limitations and the effect of failing to file within the limitations period.Taylor v. Feissner, 103 Md.App. 356, 372-76, 653 A.2d 947, cert. den., 339 Md. 455, 663 A.2d 73 (1995) (MRPC 1.4 requires attorneys to advise clients regarding statute of limitations issues, and attorneys are required to exercise reasonable care in advising clients regarding statute of limitations issues.)


Substantive Errors in Managing Statutes of Limitations or Deadlines


Law practice management systems only work if attorneys


know applicable statutes of limitations and put the correct dates into the system. Lopez, 841 N.E.2d at 467-70 (trial court erred in dismissing legal malpractice claim even though the law firm terminated representation well before expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, which was one year, because the law firm erroneously advised the plaintiff that the statute of limitations was two years and the client was not advised of the one year statute of limitations by another attorney until after the claim was time barred). Norton also provides an example of a claim that resulted


from the law firm’s substantive error in managing the statute of limitations, and it also provides an example of a statute of limitations issue that Maryland attorneys frequently encounter but do not always recognize. In Norton, the automobile accident occurred when the client had just crossed the border into Pennsylvania while commuting home from work in Maryland. Norton, 437 F.Supp.2d at 400. Two days after the accident, the client hired a Maryland law firm. Id. Pennsylvania has a general two year statute of limitations for tort suits, while Maryland has a general three year statute of limitations for tort suits. Norton, 437 F.Supp.2d at 400-01. Te firm did not file a complaint in a Pennsylvania court within two years of the date of the accident. Norton, 437 F.Supp. at 400. Many Maryland attorneys are admitted to practice law


in neighboring jurisdictions such as Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia or the District of Columbia. Some of these jurisdictions have statutes of limitations for tort suits that are shorter than Maryland’s. Unlike Maryland, some of these jurisdictions also have statutes of limitations for breach of


contract claims that are different from their statutes of limitations for tort claims, and some of these jurisdictions further differ from Maryland in that they have different statutes of limitations for breach of contract claims arising from unwritten and written contracts. Even under Maryland law, furthermore, the three year


statute of limitations generally applicable to civil claims set forth in Maryland Code Annotated, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (hereinafter “CJ”), §5-101 applies only when another statutory provision does not provide a different period of time within which an action shall be commenced. Te remainder of Subtitle 1 of Title 5 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article sets forth a number of different statutes of limitations that are applicable to specific types of causes of action. For example, defamation claims (either libel or slander) are subject to a one year statute of limitations as are assault (but not battery) claims. See, CJ §5-105. Causes of action dealing with one of the “specialties” enumerated in CJ §5-102 are subject to a 12 year statute of limitations. Statutory provisions found outside the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article also provide different statutes of limitations for particular types of causes of action. For example, statutory causes of action exist for breach of express warranties or for breach of the implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular use. See, Maryland


NYSTLA ad 3.5x4.5 2011 2/15/11 2:20 PM Page 1


Now is


the perfect time to start a client newsletter.


Use our content or write your own. We’ll design, print, and mail your newsletter.


➧ ACT NOW AND RECEIVE


15%OFFyour first issue! Mention code MAJTRIAL.


Call 800-379-5585 today. www.NewslettersInk.com


Trial Reporter / Winter 2012 37


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68