In this column on attorney liabilities, this author has oft discussed the legal malpractice statute of limitations as in flux. In light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent holding in Dittman, the legal malpractice statute of limitations in light of the economic loss/gist of the action doctrine(s) (the doctrine) must be revisited.

In Coleman v. Duane Morris, 58 A.3d 833 (Pa. Super. 2012), the Superior Court held that legal malpractice gives rise to two causes: legal malpractice negligence; and legal malpractice breach of contract.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]