California Statute Modifies Limitations Period for Certain Malpractice Claims Against Criminal Lawyers
Lawyers for the Profession® Alert
Lawyers for the Profession® Alert | 1 min read
Aug 17, 2010
California Assembly Bill No. 316, 2009-10 Reg. Sess. § 2 (2009)
Brief Summary
The California legislature, in what is believed to be the first instance of its kind in the nation, has enacted a law specifically addressed to the statute of limitations for actions by wrongfully-convicted persons against their attorneys, when proof of innocence is an element of the claim. The new law sets the time limit at two years from the date of post-conviction exoneration.
Complete Summary
A 2009 amendment to the California statute of limitations for actions against attorneys (Assembly Bill No. 316) added the following language to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.6(a):
If the plaintiff is required to establish his or her factual innocence for an underlying criminal charge as an element of his or her claim, the action shall be commenced within two years after the plaintiff achieves post-conviction exoneration in the form of a final judicial disposition of the criminal case.
In Section 1 of the bill, the legislature declared that its intent was to “remedy some of the harm caused to all factually innocent people who have been wrongfully convicted[,]” and to “remove some of the obstacles to compensation for the factually innocent and . . . ease their transition back into society.”
Significance of Amendment
In what is believed to be the first law in the nation addressed specifically to the statute of limitations for claims of negligence by criminal defense lawyers when a client must establish factual innocence as an element of a claim, California has modified the potential period of exposure and made clear that exoneration is required to trigger the statute. It remains to be seen whether other states may follow California’s example.
This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.
Related Capabilities
Featured Insights

Employment Law Observer
Aug 10, 2026
As Leaves Fall, Leave Requests Rise: Are You Compliant With Chicago’s Expanded Rules?

Press Release
Aug 7, 2026
Daniel McGrath Re-Elected Senior Director of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel

Insights for Insurers Alert
Aug 7, 2026
California Supreme Court Clarifies Pleading Standards for Excess Policy Claims

Press Release
Aug 6, 2026
Charles Townsend Named a Best Mentor Finalist in the 2026 ALM Texas Legal Awards

Webinar
Aug 5, 2026
April Toy Moderates HNBA Webinar on AI in the Practice of Law

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Aug 5, 2026
2026 AI Compliance: Upcoming Laws Every Organization Needs to Know

Press Release
July 21, 2026 | Updated on August 4, 2026
Three Hinshaw Attorneys Named to the 2026 National Black Lawyers’ Top 40 Under 40 List

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

