Does the continuing representation tolling provision apply to a client's cause of action against her former attorney's former law firm?

The court in Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at pages 1535-1540, held that the continuing representation tolling provision did not apply to a client's cause of action against her current attorney's former law firm, and declined to follow Beane v. Paulsen, supra. The primary grounds for the court's holding were that a defendant cannot waive the statute of limitations defense on behalf of another co-obligor and that a former partner has no authority to bind other former partners after the partnership is dissolved. (Crouse, at pp. 1538-1539.) We find those legal principles to be inapposite.