Wiegand of a potential buyer or to approve the ultimate purchase agreement. And contrary to the panel’s findings, Welcome did far more than write a single letter to the realtor — the May 6,2003 letter, which set forth all of the liens on the property, reflects that Welcome had also done a title search. And since the April 24, 2003 deed of gift had not been recorded until May 20, 2003, the failure of the May 6, 2003 letter to reference that deed cannot be evidence of incompetence, given that it would not have appeared as part of Welcome’s title search. Likewise, the fact that Welcome did not attend the closing, despite being retained to do so, does not, without more, rise to the level of a Model Rule 1.1 violation. See, e.g., In re Mulhall, 159 Ariz. 528, 768 P.2d 1173, 1176 (1989) (<HOLDING>). But as noted above, Wiegand did not tell
holding statute of limitations began to run when plaintiffclient learned attorney negligently drafted contract not later when plaintiff lost on merits defending contract in lawsuit holding that allowing the statute of limitations to run on the clients claim is an example of obvious malpractice that does not require expert testimony to establish a standard of care holding that statute of limitations does not run until it was or should have been clear to the employee that the union would not pursue the grievance holding that negligently allowing a statute of limitations to run does not constitute an ethical violation holding that the statute of limitations does not run on a debtorinpossession