Counsel Concerns

The California Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed that a suit over legal representation regarding TV program royalties was barred by the one-year statute of limitations for malpractice claims in Calif. Code of Civil Procedure '340.6(a). Worldwide Subsidy Group v. Bogert (WSG), B213979. WSG is a collection company for royalties from retransmissions of TV programs on cable and satellite. Though a WSG principal had asked him to stop serving as counsel to the company, Jeffrey C. Bogert purported to represent WSG (d/b/a Independent Producers Group) in a 2004 settlement of a proceeding before the Library of Congress's Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP). Later in 2004, WSG's then-current counsel Brian Boydston obtained an unsigned copy of the settlement agreement, which he believed hurt WSG's interest. WSG filed a professional negligence complaint against Bogert in Los Angeles Superior Court in November 2006. Section 340.6(a) states that an “action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission ' arising in the performance of professional services shall be commenced within one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission ' whichever occurs first.” The trial court granted Bogert's motion for summary judgment in finding that the evidence clearly demonstrated WSG “sustained actual and appreciable harm no later than December 2004 or January 2005, and thus, that [appellant] knew or should have known of Defendant's alleged negligence as of that date.”