Day on Torts
The legal malpractice statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of reasonable care should know, that he or she has suffered an injury due to the attorney’s alleged negligence.
In Reese v. Hill, No. E2025-01783-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2026), the plaintiff filed a pro se legal malpractice complaint based on the defendant attorney’s representation of the plaintiff in a criminal case and the related sentencing. On January 21, 2022, the plaintiff filed a “Motion Requesting Correction of Illegal Sentence” in the underlying criminal case, asserting that he had been improperly sentenced. Later, In June 2022, he filed a motion for post-conviction relief. In February 2023, the post-conviction court found that the plaintiff had “shown ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the sentencing issue.” After this ruling, on April 11, 2023, the plaintiff filed this pro se legal malpractice claim.
The defendant attorney moved to dismiss the legal malpractice claim based on the statute of limitations. The trial court agreed that the plaintiff was on notice of the alleged negligence on January 21, 2022, when he filed his first post-sentencing motion, and dismissed the claim as time-barred. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
A legal malpractice claim is subject to a one-year statute of limitations, which begins to run “from the time [the plaintiff] knows, or in the exercise of reasonable care should know, that he has suffered an injury as a result of a defendant’s wrong-doing.” (internal citation omitted). The plaintiff argued that he did not know about the alleged legal malpractice until he filed his petition for post-conviction relief in June 2022. The Court pointed out, however, that the plaintiff’s January 2022 filing complained of the same conduct by the defendant.
Because the plaintiff’s January 2022 filing showed that he was aware of the alleged negligence at that time, his legal malpractice claim filed more than one year later was time-barred. Dismissal was affirmed.
This opinion was released three months after the case was assigned on briefs.