by Christopher J. Graham and Joseph P. Kelly

Croucier v. Chavos, 207 Cal. App. 4th 1138, 144 Cal. Rptr. 3rd 180 (Cal. App. July 18, 2012)

Plaintiffs suffered “actual injury” triggering legal malpractice one-year statute of limitations when they knew defendant attorney didn’t competently pursue enforcement of a judgment, rather than when the plaintiffs found evidence that the judgment was collectible. Defendant attorney had obtained a default judgment in favor of plaintiffs, but then left his firm and there was no substitution of attorney for a year and a half. Statute of limitations began running when plaintiffs’ new attorney substituted in the case and immediately began collection proceedings – not two months later when post-judgment proceedings indicated that the judgment was collectible.