Shumsky v. Eisenstein

David Shumsky and Marjorie Scheiber (plaintiffs) hired attorney Paul Eisenstein (defendant) in 1993 to sue a home inspector for breach of contract, but Eisenstein never filed suit before the statute of limitations expired in March 1994, and continued failing to communicate with his clients about the case's status, later admitting he was too embarrassed to disclose his failure even when Shumsky and Scheiber reached out in October 1996 asking for a status update. After a 1997 disciplinary complaint revealed the failure, Shumsky and Scheiber sued Eisenstein for malpractice in December 1997; Eisenstein moved for summary judgment arguing the malpractice claim itself was time-barred from March 1994, the trial court denied the motion applying the continuous-representation doctrine, and the appellate division reversed, finding the doctrine inapplicable since the underlying action was never filed and Eisenstein did nothing to actively lull the clients into believing it was proceeding.