|
1896 REVIEW DENIED Any action that is inextricably tied to the claim that a lawyer failed to exercise the skill and learning required of a member of the legal profession is subject to the attorney malpractice statute of limitations, but a claim that defendant, who happened to be a lawyer, was negligent in rendering services as an administrative consultant is not an action for professional negligence and is not subject to the attorney malpractice statute of limitations.CitationQUINTILLIANI v MANNERINO (Main Event) 62 CA4 52 [See: Radovich v Locke-Paddon 35 CA4 946, T/AT 7/95; Pompilio v Kosmo 39 CA4 1324, T/AT 12/95; Stoll v Superior Court 9 CA4 1362, T/AT 11/92]
|
|
