Rojo v. Tunick

Plaintiff, pro se, sued Defendant for legal malpractice, alleging that Defendant provided deficient representation in criminal trial, leading to Plaintiff's conviction, and that Defendant withdrew before the completion of the case, forcing Plaintiff to pay for new counsel and refusing to refund any of Plaintiff's fees. The absence of an actual-innocence allegation barred the legal-malpractice claim asserting that Defendant's deficient performance led to Plaintiff's conviction, but did not bar the claim seeking reimbursement of fees..Plaintiff's cause of action did not accrue until he incurred actual damages by paying a new attorney for his criminal case. Nothing in record indicates when Plaintiff paid his new attorney, which is an unresolved question of fact that precludes dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint.  Plaintiff did not have right to have counsel appointed for him in his legal malpractice case, which is a civil action. A litigant in a civil action has neither a constitutional nor a statutory right to counsel.  (BRIDGES and BRENNAN, concurring.)