A federal appeals court has breathed new life into a
legal malpractice lawsuit that a lower court had dismissed as untimely, highlighting how critical timing and discovery
rules are in professional liability litigation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that a one-year statute of limitations for malpractice claims did not begin until the plaintiff discovered the alleged attorney error, reversing a summary judgment in favor of the defendant attorney and law firm.
Background of the Legal Malpractice Dispute
The malpractice suit centers on former client Stacy Cales, who sued lawyer Kristopher Justice and his firm, Theisen & Brock LPA, alleging negligent legal advice regarding contract language. Cales filed her malpractice complaint in September 2023, asserting that she learned in April 2023 that the contractual guidance she received from Justice was flawed.
At the heart of the case is whether Cales’s lawsuit was filed within the
statute of limitations under applicable malpractice law. The district court had ruled that the claim was untimely and granted summary judgment to Justice and Theisen & Brock, effectively dismissing Cales’s case without a full trial. But the Sixth Circuit disagreed.
Statute of Limitations in Legal Malpractice Cases
Legal malpractice claims are subject to strict time limits. Under most malpractice rules, these cases must be filed within one year of when the plaintiff
discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the attorney’s alleged mistake. This “discovery rule” is designed to give both clients and attorneys predictability while ensuring meritorious claims aren’t barred prematurely.
The Sixth Circuit agreed with Cales that she did not reasonably discover the allegedly deficient contract advice until April 2023 not at the time she originally received the legal services. Because she filed her malpractice suit within one year of that discovery, the appellate court held her case was timely.
In its ruling, the court emphasized that the statute of limitations begins to run only once a plaintiff has actual or constructive knowledge of the malpractice. This decision underscores how courts balance procedural deadlines with fairness to clients who may not immediately recognize professional errors.
Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment
The Sixth Circuit’s decision reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Justice and Theisen & Brock LPA. Summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. By reversing that ruling, the appeals court found that factual questions remain, particularly about
when Cales first discovered the alleged malpractice and whether her beliefs were reasonable.
Judge Eric L. Clay, writing for the appellate panel, confirmed that determining the discovery date can be a fact-intensive inquiry that often requires a trial or further proceedings. Because the lower court resolved the timing issue too early at the summary judgment stage the appellate court remanded the case for additional factual development.
What This Means for Legal Malpractice Law
This ruling has broader implications for legal malpractice jurisprudence. It reinforces the principle that professional negligence claims cannot be dismissed simply because a lawyer argues the statute of limitations has expired. Instead, courts must carefully evaluate when the plaintiff actually learned of the alleged error, particularly in complex contract cases where advice may not immediately reveal its legal ramifications.
In many legal malpractice cases, clients do not realize they have been harmed until subsequent events such as a contractual dispute, adverse judgment, or failed negotiation expose the inadequacy of prior legal advice. Courts use objective standards to determine whether a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position should have discovered the error earlier. The Sixth Circuit’s decision reflects this nuanced approach.
Next Steps on Remand
With summary judgment reversed, the malpractice lawsuit will now proceed in the federal district court. Cales will need to prove the underlying elements of legal malpractice, including:
- Duty of Care: That the attorney owed her a professional duty when providing legal services.
- Breach of Standard of Care: That the attorney’s contract advice fell below the accepted legal standard.
- Causation: That the breach directly caused her damages.
- Damages: That she suffered measurable harm as a result of the allegedly negligent contract language advice.
Proving legal malpractice often requires expert testimony on both standard of care and causation. Because the Sixth Circuit has cleared the procedural hurdle of the statute of limitations, the merits of Cales’s claims will now be fully tested on the factual record.
Key Takeaways for Attorneys and Clients
For attorneys, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear, well-documented advice especially when drafting or interpreting contract language that could have long-term consequences. Even if a client does not immediately recognize a mistake, future disputes may trigger malpractice liability.
For potential malpractice plaintiffs, the ruling highlights the importance of timing. Understanding when you reasonably
should have discovered an attorney error is critical for both filing suit on time and preserving your legal rights.
Conclusion
The Sixth Circuit’s decision in this legal malpractice appeal emphasizes the complex interplay between discovery rules and statutes of limitations in professional liability cases. By reviving Cales’s lawsuit and sending it back for further proceedings, the court has reaffirmed that legal malpractice claims require careful factual analysis and that plaintiffs should not be barred prematurely when the timing of discovery is genuinely in dispute.
Ready to advance your legal career? Explore thousands of verified attorney jobs, exclusive law firm openings, and in-depth career resources at
LawCrossing. Whether you’re a litigator, corporate lawyer, or legal professional seeking your next opportunity,
LawCrossing connects you with positions you won’t find anywhere else. Start your search today and take the next step in your legal career.
