The Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on whether an attorney’s continued representation of a client following an alleged occurrence of legal malpractice should toll the statute of limitations for bringing a malpractice claim against the lawyer.

Attorney Matthew Weisberg of Weisberg Law, who is representing the mother and son plaintiffs, Monica and David Clark, argued it should run through the adoption of the Continuance Representation Rule, or CRR.

This content has been archived.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]