Mr. Meyer recently secured the dismissal of a legal malpractice complaint on statute of limitation grounds. Summary judgment and a six-figure sanctions order was entered against the plaintiff in the underlying case, purportedly as the result of our client’s negligence. Because the plaintiff had filed the underlying action pro se and never withdrew his appearance, the clerk of court continued to send him every document that was filed with the court, including the summary judgment and sanctions orders. We thus argued that the plaintiff knew (or should have known) of his injury soon after the judgment and sanctions order was entered against him in the underlying action, two years and few months prior to his filing of the malpractice complaint. The plaintiff countered that our client willfully concealed his cause of action from him, thereby tolling the period of limitations. Using the plaintiff’s own testimony regarding the date he uncovered the alleged concealment, we argued that a client who learns of the concealment with sufficient time left in the original limitation period must file in that original period, irrespective of any alleged concealment. The trial court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s amended complaint with prejudice.