Understanding the Statute of Limitations in Legal Malpractice

Ok, ok, we brought up alien intelligence and iCollege here, together, and you likely want to know more about that. But that will have to wait, the purpose of this journey is to explore a small facet of human culture that is frequently overlooked, but which is of great importance in the fields of law and civil justice, namely, a statute of limitations.

A statute of limitations is essentially a law that puts an enforced time limit on how long someone has to act on a particular legal matter. Once that imposed limit has passed, a person can no longer pursue legal action over that matter. Generally, statutes of limitation are invoked in civil actions, which include property and contract disputes, libel and slander cases, product liability claims, and many others. In New York, for example, the three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice is a critical aspect to consider. So, if you were to sue, say, an attorney because you feel she or he did not do their job properly, then an alien intelligence looking at your civilization would most certainly ask “why?” Why did you let it go on for three years without taking any type of action?

To alien intelligence, the Earth culture of law and justice may seem strange. For one thing, the person who decides whether or not a certain action should be taken, such as suing someone, is not the person to control the outcome of that particular action. As previously pointed out, New York has a three-year statute of limitations for cases of legal malpractice, so it is predictable that putting a time limit on when a person can sue an attorney for what they did or did not do. But why three years? And why do other nations have such different time windows? (For example, in Austria, it is 30 years, according to Understanding New York’s Statute of Limitations for Legal Malpractice.) Trying to answer those questions leads to some even harder ones, such as whether or not time is even a dimension?

A statute of limitations may come into play during any number of civil actions, from suing a contractor who did a bad job to requesting compensation after being injured in a car accident. But in the context of legal malpractice, a statute of limitations is a way to try to uphold the integrity of an entire profession. If there were no limits on how long someone could wait to file a suit against a lawyer who may or may not have done her or his job to the best of their ability, then there would be countless loopholes for clients to exploit. The legal system is a fragile thing, and putting limits on time just makes that system a little bit stronger by making sure that past actions do not come to bite people later on.

The law of legal malpractice is a defensive tool to keep lawyers safe. In the hands of an alien intelligence, that defense might seem trivial, even silly. But does that mean the law is superfluous? Or is it something worse?

A famous alien once said that earthlings ‘play at being like [they] were.’ But they aren’t, and perhaps some laws reflect that dichotomy. Perhaps it is in the nature of a law of limitations to always be out of step with its perceived universe. That leads you down a rabbit hole of possible explanations for seemingly contradictory laws, all of which only make sense if you acknowledge that people are not always rational actors subject to the desires of a culture.

As stated above, the statute of limitations that New York imposes on a legal malpractice case is three years. This is a relatively long period of time in comparison to some other civil actions, which can restrict lawsuits to just one year. Some attorneys may be able to defend themselves against legal malpractice claims on the grounds that the plaintiff tried to extend the statute of limitations by waiting three or more years before filing a claim. Others may simply be fully aware that their client was hurt by their actions, and that they did not do their best in some regard, and yet those clients were still a valued source of income, and found themselves in a position where they had to choose between not pursuing a case and potentially losing their livelihoods.

Because of claims and counterclaims that many lawyers would make against a client, some might consider it a nightmare scenario for a lawyer to have their clients so upset that they were willing to risk living without financial stability for the sake of seeking out retribution for their lawyer’s negligence. By having a legal malpractice statute of limitations in place, the culture of law in New York effectively protects itself. Is that a good thing? Is that a bad thing? Is a statute of limitations something that is even applicable at all in the face of infinity?

Here is a hint: for judges, jurors, defendants, and plaintiffs average, everyday humans looking to pursue a civil action in court, the statute of limitations is as real as gravity, and serves a very important function.