Hirt Applegate recently prevailed at the Wyoming Supreme Court. In the underlying case, Hirst Applegate defended a Wyoming law firm against legal malpractice claims. Plaintiff argued for the application of the continuous representation rule to toll the statute of limitations in legal malpractice actions until representation terminates. Wyoming’ statute of limitations for professional negligence requires a plaintiff to bring claims within two years of the alleged act, error, or omission. Plaintiff filed her claims two years and two weeks after the conclusion of trial, when the last alleged act of malpractice occurred. Plaintiff asserted, under the continuous representation rule, the statute of limitations tolled until the attorney formally withdrew from representation two months later.
The Wyoming Supreme Court agreed with Hirst Applegate, soundly rejecting the application of the rule despite the Court’s previous application of the continuous treatment rule in medical malpractice cases. Notably, the Court held Wyoming’s statute of limitations language is unambiguous and the continuous representation rule is inapplicable to legal malpractice claims.