holding that the “injury” in legal malpractice cases is inherently undiscoverable, reasoning that “[i]t is unrealistic to expect a layman client to have sufficient legal acumen to perceive an injury at the time of the negligent act or omission of his attorney”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the “injury” in legal malpractice cases is inherently undiscoverable, reasoning that “[i]t is unrealistic to expect a layman client to have sufficient legal acumen to perceive an injury at the time of the negligent act or omission of his attorney”
- reasoning that legal malpractice is in nature of tort and therefore subject to two-year limitations period for torts established by section 16.003 of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
- holding that even in the context of legal malpractice actions, claimants are not excused from exercising “reasonable care and diligence” to discover facts of claim
- deciding as a matter of law that the discovery rule applied to attorney-client negligence cases, and then stating that “the claimant has the burden of pleading and proving facts suspending operation of a statute of limitations”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GONZALEZ, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
For the reasons stated in Chief Justice Cadena’s dissenting opinion, 723 S.W.2d at 262, I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand this cause for a new trial.
CULVER, J., joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.