X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In this legal malpractice case, appellants appeal the trial court’s take-nothing summary judgment in favor of appellees. The appellants filed this suit on March 7, 2002, alleging that the defendants negligently drafted or reviewed family limited partnership agreements and failed to timely notify appellants of the defects in the agreements. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment based on limitations. Appellants responded to these motions arguing the discovery rule applied and their claims were not barred by limitations, because nothing in a letter from an IRS attorney, an IRS notice of deficiency, or a memorandum advising appellants of the IRS’s position would have put a reasonably prudent, nonlawyer taxpayer on notice of her claims. According to appellants, their claims did not accrue until early May 2000, when an attorney informed appellants of the defects in the family limited partnership agreements. The appellants also argued that their claims were tolled under the Hughes v. Mahaney & Higgins, 821 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. 1991), rule until July 28, 2000, when their tax case was resolved. The trial court granted the motions for summary judgment and entered a take-nothing judgment on appellants’ claims. HOLDING:Affirmed. A person suffers injury from faulty professional advice when the advice is taken. Murphy v. Campbell, 964 S.W.2d 265 (Tex. 1997). Because it is unrealistic to expect a lay client to have the legal acumen to perceive the negligence of his attorney in giving faulty tax advice, and because the injury flowing from faulty tax advice is objectively verifiable, the discovery rule applies and such a claim accrues when the claimant knows or in the exercise of ordinary diligence should know of the wrongful act and resulting injury. In a faulty tax advice case, this cannot occur later than the receipt of the deficiency notice, when the IRS takes a final, formal position. Here, the deficiency notice on June 25, 1998, was the latest date on which appellants’ claims accrued. Because they did not file suit until March 7, 2002, their claims are barred, the court holds. The court concludes that, after receiving the deficiency notice, the appellants knew or should have known that the appellees’ alleged negligence in drafting and/or reviewing the agreements forming the limited family partnerships, if any, had caused the risk of concrete and specific harm to their legally protected economic interests. Because the alleged negligent drafting and/or review of the agreements creating the family limited partnerships, if any, is not attorney malpractice committed during “the prosecution or defense of a claim that results in litigation,” the alleged malpractice in this case is not within a category of legal malpractice cases encompassed within the Hughes definition, and, thus, the Hughes rule does not apply. OPINION:Wright, J.; Wright, Moseley and Lang, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.