GONZALEZ v. KALU
Client's allegation that attorney--after filing an administrative complaint against client's employer with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and telling client that the case would take a very long time and that attorney would call her or send her a letter--had no contact with client for almost three years raised triable issues of fact as to whether attorney continued to represent client during that time, which would toll the limitations period, and whether such "continuing representation" was for a period sufficient to make client's malpractice action timely.
Comments on GONZALEZ v. KALU