What is the duty of an attorney to warn a client or prospective client of the statute of limitations applicable to the proposed action?

These cases, and others, concern liability for erroneous advice, relied upon by third parties, or negligent drafting that thwarts a client's expressed wishes. The duty to warn a client or prospective client of the need to file an action before the running of the statute of limitations--an issue very close to the problem in this case--was discussed in Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537, 885 P.2d 950. The issue in the case was the scope of an attorney's duty to advise a new or prospective client about the need to file a lawsuit, when the attorney learns that the suit would irreconcilably conflict with his or her duty to an existing client. The court concluded that the requirement of undivided loyalty to the first client negates any duty to inform the second client of the statute of limitations applicable to the proposed suit. It extends even to negate a duty to inform the second client of the advisability of seeking alternative counsel. (Id. at pp. 278-279, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537, 885 P.2d 950.) The court emphasized the narrowness of its holding: it applies only where there is a mandatory and unwaivable duty not to represent the second client. The court cautioned that "in the absence of such an irreducible conflict and mandatory duty to withdraw, an attorney's duty to advise a new or even a 'prospective' client, once the nonengagement decision has been taken, may well be more extensive; ..." (Id. at p. 279, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537, 885 P.2d 950.)