B. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
The statute of limitations for a legal malpractice cause of action is three years.1 Under the discovery rule, "the statute of limitations accrues at the time of the negligence or when the facts and circumstances would put a person of common knowledge on notice that there might be a claim against another party."2 "[T]he statute of limitations begins to run from the date the injured party either knows or should know, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, that a cause of action exists for wrongful conduct."3 "The 'exercise of reasonable diligence' means the injured party must act with some promptness where the facts and circumstances of an injury place a reasonable person of common knowledge and experience on notice that a claim against another party might exist."4 Moreover, "the statute of limitations is triggered not merely by knowledge of an injury but by knowledge of facts, diligently acquired, sufficient to put an injured person on notice of the existence of a cause of action against another."5
Ignorance that the attorney was responsible for the injury will not delay the commencement of the running of the statute of limitations if, upon gaining knowledge of the injury, the plaintiff could have determined that the attorney caused the injury by diligently investigating the matter.6 "The important date under the discovery rule is the date that a plaintiff discovers the injury, not the date of discovery of the identity of another alleged wrongdoer."7 Thus, "[i]f, on the date of injury, a plaintiff knows or should know that he had some claim against someone else, the statute of limitations begins to run for all claims based on that injury."8 For instance, in Peterson v. Richland County, the plaintiff discovered that a confession of judgment had not been properly indexed, and subsequently sued the clerk of court.9 Later, when the clerk answered the plaintiff's complaint, the plaintiff realized that her10 attorney may have been negligent in failing to ensure that the judgment was properly indexed.11 In that case, the Court of Appeals held that a reasonable person, acting diligently, should have discovered that her attorney was negligent at the time she realized that the judgment was not indexed properly.12
The standard for determining when the statute of limitations begins to run is objective rather than subjective.13 "A party cannot escape the application of the discovery rule by claiming ignorance of existing facts and circumstances, because the law also provides that if such facts and circumstances could have been known to the party through the exercise of ordinary care and reasonable diligence, the same result follows."14 However, when applying the discovery rule, a court in South Carolina may look to the specific facts of the case before it, as well as the sophistication level of the specific plaintiff, to determine when a person in the plaintiff's position should know that a claim against another party might exist.15 For example, in Holmes v. Haynsworth, Sinkler & Boyd, P.A., the Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations began to run on the plaintiff's claim on the date when the plaintiff, who was herself an attorney, was openly critical of her attorney in a pro se filing with the district court.16
A court may determine the date a plaintiff's legal malpractice claim accrued as a matter of law based on the undisputed facts of the case.17 If there is a dispute about a material fact that would have put the plaintiff on notice of the potential malpractice claim, however, the court may allow a jury to determine which party's version of the facts is more credible.18 In True v. Monteith, the Supreme Court held that if the defendant-attorney disclosed, as he claimed to have, his dual representation to the plaintiff, then the plaintiff would have been on notice of her potential claim on that date and the plaintiff's case would have been barred by the statute of limitations.19 However, because the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had never disclosed his dual representation to her, the court remanded the case for the jury to decide the date on which the plaintiff was on notice of the potential claim.20
South Carolina courts have recognized situations in which the statute of limitations may be tolled or delayed. For example, the Supreme Court's decision in Stokes-Craven Holding Corp. v. Robinson recognizes that the statute for a legal malpractice claim arising from litigation may not commence to run until the underlying case is resolved on appeal.21 However, "the statute is not delayed until the injured party seeks advice of counsel or develops a full-blown theory of recovery; instead, reasonable diligence requires a plaintiff to 'act with some promptness.'"22 Therefore, a plaintiff will not likely be successful in arguing that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until they consulted with independent counsel about the possibility of a claim.
The doctrine of equitable estoppel can prevent the defendant from raising the statute of limitations as a defense in a legal malpractice case.23 "To establish equitable estoppel, the party claiming estoppel24 must prove that he or she (1) lacked knowledge and means of obtaining knowledge of the truth of the facts in question; and (2) relied upon the conduct of the party to be estopped."25 Furthermore, "[t]he party claiming estoppel must also establish that the party to be estopped (1) acted in a way amounting to a false representation or concealment of material facts; (2) intended such conduct to be acted upon by the other party; and (3) possessed knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the true facts."26
Additionally, the plaintiff must be aware of the potential suit at the time the defendant induces him to delay filing suit.27 For example, in Clearwater Trust v. Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham, P.A., the district court held that the plaintiffs could not argue equitable estoppel because they had...
