Claybourn v. Finley — dismissed the legal-malpractice claims as untimely

Case
Frances Elizabeth Claybourn v. Marta Finley and Maria A. Finley, Attorney at Law, LLC
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit
Judge
McClendon, C.J.; Theriot, J.; Miller, J.; Greene, J.; Haggerty, J. ad hoc
Date Decided
August 25, 2026
Docket No.
2026 CW 0342
Topics
Legal Malpractice; Peremption; Wills and Successions
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Frances Elizabeth Claybourn alleged that the defendants committed legal malpractice on February 19, 2021, by failing to comply with the requirements of then-effective Louisiana Civil Code article 1579 when preparing a decedent’s will.

Maria Finley publicly filed the 2021 will for probate on March 18, 2021. Claybourn opposed probate on the ground that Finley had failed to comply with article 1579, but she did not file her legal-malpractice claim until July 11, 2025. The trial court denied the defendants’ peremptory exception of prescription, and the defendants sought supervisory review.

The Court’s Holding

The Louisiana Court of Appeal granted the writ and reversed the trial court. Under Louisiana Revised Statutes section 9:5605, a legal-malpractice action must be brought within one year of the alleged misconduct or its discovery and, in all events, no later than three years after the alleged act, omission, or neglect. Those periods are peremptive and cannot be renounced, interrupted, or suspended.

The court found that Claybourn knew or should have known the facts enabling her to state a malpractice claim no later than March 18, 2021, when the will was filed for probate. Because she filed suit more than three years after both the alleged malpractice and that date, the court granted the defendants’ exception and dismissed the claims against them with prejudice. Chief Judge McClendon concurred in the result, while Judge Greene dissented and would have denied the writ.

Key Takeaways

  • Louisiana’s one-year and three-year limitations for legal-malpractice actions are peremptive periods that cannot be interrupted or suspended.
  • A malpractice claimant has sufficient knowledge when the claimant knows or should know of the harm, its delictual cause, and the defendants’ connection to it.
  • Claybourn’s opposition to probate based on the alleged defect showed that she knew or should have known the relevant facts by March 18, 2021.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores the strict outer deadline governing Louisiana legal-malpractice claims. Even when a plaintiff relies on later discovery, filing more than three years after the alleged professional error generally extinguishes the claim.

For succession disputes, a party’s challenge to a will based on counsel’s alleged drafting failure may also establish that the party had enough knowledge to pursue a malpractice action.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top