Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility


Torts — Legal malpractice — Statute of limitations

In this legal malpractice case, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted summary judgment in favor of the appellee, Schlachman, Belsky & Weiner P.A. (“SBW”), finding that the negligence claim of appellant, Dudley Bradley (“Bradley”), was time-barred by Maryland’s three-year statute of limitations. In March 2008, Bradley retained SBW to represent him in a personal injury suit against an employee of the United States Postal Service (“USPS”). On July 28, 2016, Bradley filed a complaint alleging that SBW failed to comply with the notice requirements set forth in the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). Following the completion of discovery, SBW filed a motion for summary judgment contending that Henry Belsky — a principal of the law firm — met with Bradley in March 2013 to inform Bradley that he may have a malpractice claim against SBW.

SBW argued that Bradley’s claim was time-barred because Bradley discovered his claim in the March 2013 meeting but did not file the complaint until July 2016. Bradley opposed the summary judgment motion, arguing that the alleged meeting with Mr. Belsky occurred in July 2013. As a result, according to Bradley, his malpractice claim was not time-barred. The circuit court agreed with SBW. On appeal, Bradley poses one question, which we set forth verbatim. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the ground that Mr. Bradley’s legal malpractice action was barred by the statute of limitations.

Read the opinion