HOLDINGS: [1]-The tolling of the statute of limitations under Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6, subd. (a)(2)’s continuous representation exception ended more than one year before the filing of a client’s legal malpractice action against the law firm that had been its patent counsel where the client had consented to the firm’s emailed withdrawal by requesting that the client’s files be immediately delivered to replacement counsel; [2]-Even if the firm had withdrawn without the client’s consent, the withdrawal would still have been effective because after receiving the firm’s email, the client could not reasonably have expected that the firm would provide further legal services; [3]-The firm was entitled to recover attorney fees because the attorney fees clause in the parties’ legal services agreement applied to the malpractice claim, as it constituted a dispute between the parties relating to the agreement.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. informs on how to calculate PAGA penalties


Judgment and postjudgment order affirmed.