AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendants, alleging legal malpractice. They argued that their complaint was timely based on the continuous representation doctrine, which they believed tolled the statute of limitations until the end of the attorney-client relationship. The district court, however, granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, finding the complaint untimely filed under the statute of limitations.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis that their complaint was untimely filed under the statute of limitations. They contended that the continuous representation doctrine should toll the statute of limitations through the conclusion of the attorney-client relationship, potentially rendering their complaint timely (paras 2-3).
• Defendants: Supported the district court's decision, arguing in favor of the summary judgment against the Plaintiffs and opposing the application of the continuous representation doctrine to toll the statute of limitations (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis that the Plaintiffs' complaint was untimely filed under the statute of limitations.
• Whether the continuous representation doctrine applies in New Mexico to toll the statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims until the end of the attorney-client relationship.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s summary judgment and order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions (para 6).

Reasons

• KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge, with MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge, and JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge, concurring:
  The Court of Appeals was not persuaded by the Plaintiffs' arguments regarding the application of the continuous representation doctrine to toll the statute of limitations for their legal malpractice claim. The Court noted that the New Mexico Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have consistently declined to adopt the continuous representation doctrine. Instead, under New Mexico law, the statute of limitations for legal malpractice begins to run when the client discovers, or should have discovered, that they have suffered a loss potentially caused by the attorney's wrongful act or omission, not at the end of the attorney-client relationship. The Court found that the Plaintiffs did not provide any new facts or authorities that would persuade it to deviate from its proposed summary disposition. Additionally, the Court declined the Plaintiffs' request to review the record in support of their contention concerning their denied motion for sanctions, emphasizing that it is not the Court's duty to search the record or research the law on behalf of a party (paras 2-6).