Case Summary

4622 REVIEW DENIED A criminal defendant's belief in his own innocence, and his lawyer's failure to mount a real defense, do not necessarily amount to discovery of facts necessary to a cause of action for attorney malpractice and do not therefore start the statute of limitations running on the claim; in a suit for attorney malpractice in connection with defending plaintiff against criminal charges, the requirement that plaintiff obtain post-conviction exoneration applies to proof of a case, but is not an impediment to the commencement of an action, so time limits are not tolled pending such exoneration; under Proposition 51 (Civil Code section 1431.2), the trier of fact should apportion fault among all who tortiously contributed to the injury, including persons or entities that are immune from liability; in an attorney malpractice action for emotional distress resulting from plaintiff's incarceration for a crime of which he was innocent, police officers who falsely arrested him and falsely testified against him contributed to the harm and should be included in the apportionment of fault.

OVANDO v COUNTY OF LA (Rampart Scandal) 159 CA4 42 [See: CivC 1431.2; State v Superior Court 32 C4 1234, P/AT 7/04; Fox v Ethicon 35 C4 797, T/AT 6/05; Wiley v County 19 C4 532, T/AT 1/99; Coscia v McKenna 25 C4 1194, T/AT 6/00; DaFonte v Up-Right 2 C4 593]