Full opinion text
Re Document Nos.: 36, 37, 38i 43, 49 MEMORANDUM OPINION Granting B & G Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting Defendant Lipman’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; Denying as Moot B & G Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss; and Denying as Moot B & G Defendants’ Motion To Strike Expert Opinions RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Nieves Rocha (“Mrs.Rocha”), individually and as the personal representative of the estate of her deceased husband, Oscar Rocha (“Mr.Rocha”), has commenced this action against attorney Daniel Brown, his law firm, Brown & Gould, LLP, and David Lipman, P.A. (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging legal malpractice (Count I), breach of fiduciary duty (Count II), and breach of contract (Count III). Mrs. Rocha alleges that Defendants committed malpractice by failing to file her asbestos-related claims, which arose out of her husband’s death from complications caused by mesothelioma, in Maryland state court. Defendants instead filed a lawsuit on Mrs. Rocha’s behalf in D.C. Superior Court, and the D.C. court ultimately ruled that the claims were time-barred under D.C.Code § 12-311. Relatedly, Mrs. Rocha alleges that Brown, through his work with the Trial Lawyers Association of Metro Washington, D.C. (“DC-TLA”), erred by failing to get D.C.Code § 12-311 amended in a way that would have made Mrs. Rocha’s asbestos-related lawsuit retroactively timely. Now before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Brown & Gould, LLP and Daniel Brown (collectively, the “B & G Defendants”), as well as a motion for summary judgment filed by Lipman that incorporates the B & G Defendants’ motion and adds arguments specific to Lipman’s role in the representation. Together, Defendants seek judgment on Mrs. Rocha’s legal malpractice claim in Count I by arguing that the claim is barred by both the statute of limitations and the “judgmental immunity” doctrine. Defendants also request judgment in their favor as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim in Count II on the basis that the claim is not separate and distinct from the legal malpractice claim in Count I. Finally, Defendants seek judgment on Count III, which' is premised on Brown’s legislative activity, on the basis that Mrs. Rocha fails to state any cognizable legal theory entitling her to relief. In response, Mrs. Rocha has filed a cross-motion asking the Court to enter judgment for her on the issue of whether the legal malpractice claim in Count I was timely filed. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the B & G Defendants’ and Lipman’s motions for summary. judgment, and the Court will deny Mrs. Rocha’s motion. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Upon consideration of the evidentiary record submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the following facts are not in dispute. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A. Oscar Rocha’s History Oscar Rocha, a Virginia resident, was employed as a carpenter and painter in the Virginia and D.C. area from approximately 1971 through 1984. See Omnibus Order, Civ. Act. No. 0838-9, Jan. 10, 2011 (D.C.Sup.Ct.) (“Omnibus Order”), ECF No. 37-5, Ex. 9 at 21. During that time, Mr. Rocha used and came into contact with asbestos and asbestos-containing products. See id. at 21-22. On February 22, 2006, Mr. Rocha was diagnosed with mesothelioma, which is a cancer commonly associated with exposure to asbestos, see Surgical Report, ECF No. 37-8, Ex. 25, and Mr. Rocha was informed of this diagnosis on February 28, 2006, see Pathology Report, ECF No. 37-8, Ex. 26. Mr. Rocha died from complications related to his illness on February 10, 2008. See Death Certificate, ECF No. 37-9, Ex. 27; Omnibus Order, Ex. 9 at 22. B. Brown & Gould’s Initial Conversations With Mrs. Rocha Mrs. Rocha first spoke to Brown and his associates by telephone on February 9, 2009. See N. Rocha Dep., ECF No. 37-1, Ex. 1 at 26:20-27:17; Lawson-Hue Dep., ECF No. 37-3, Ex. 5 at 16:1-10. Because Mr. Rocha was diagnosed with mesothelio-ma on February 22, 2006, and died on February 10, 2008, Brown initially determined that the one-year limitations period in D.C.Code § 12-311 likely would expire on February 10, 2009, and the limitations period for a survival action in Maryland likely would expire twelve days later. See Brown Aff., ECF No. 37-9, at ¶¶8-10. Medical records later indicated that Mr. Rocha was not informed of his diagnosis until February 28, 2006, which may have extended the Maryland limitations period by six days, but Brown did not have this information in February 2009. See id. ¶10. During the initial telephone call on February 9, 2009, Mrs. Rocha provided Brown with information regarding Mr. Rocha’s work history. In particular, she informed Brown that Mr. Rocha had worked for many years as a carpenter, drywall worker, and independent painter; that he had worked at the Skyline Towers apartment complex in Virginia when it collapsed in 1973; and that he had performed painting work at the D.C. Greyhound Bus terminal, where he may have been exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing insulation. See Client Intake Form, ECF No. 37-9, Ex. 28; N. Rocha Dep. at 29:1-33:15; see also Brown Dep., ECF No. 37-2, Ex. 3 at 60:10-17, 98:22-99:10. Mrs. Rocha and her son, Michael, met with Brown in-person the next day, February 10, 2009. Given the imminent potential limitations deadlines, Brown informed the Rochas that it was imperative to locate any witnesses or evidence that might provide information regarding where Mr. Rocha was exposed to asbestos. See Brown Aff. ¶ 11. At this meeting, the Rochas did not advise Brown that Mr. Rocha had performed work in Maryland that might have exposed him to asbestos. See id.; Interview Notes, ECF No. 37-9, Ex. 29. Also at this meeting, Brown gave Mrs. Rocha a client intake questionnaire to fill out. See N. Rocha Dep. at 34:5-35:12; Client Questionnaire, ECF No. 37-9, Ex. 31. Mrs. Rocha’s responses to the questionnaire did not indicate any potential connection between Mr. Rocha and asbestos exposure in Maryland, nor did Mrs. Rocha indicate that she had knowledge of a witness who might possess such information about Mr. Rocha’s potential exposure in Maryland. See Client Questionnaire, Ex. 31; see also N. Rocha Dep. at 33:18-36:12, 39:6-40:17, 43:16-44:5; Brown Dep. at 50:3-51:18; Brown Aff. ¶ 11. In her answers to the questionnaire, Mrs. Rocha provided the contact information for her eldest son, John, but neither Mrs. Rocha nor Michael Rocha told Brown in 2009 that John might possess information regarding Mr. Rocha’s work history, including whether Mr. Rocha may have been exposed to asbestos in Maryland. See Client Questionnaire, Ex. 31; Brown Dep. at 106:8-107:22; Brown Aff. ¶ 11. Brown attempted to contact John Rocha by telephone in February 2009, and Brown left a message when John did not answer. See Brown Dep. at 78:9-11. When John Rocha called back, he did not indicate in his message for Brown that he had information regarding Mr. Rocha’s work history, and Brown and John ultimately did not talk directly in February 2009. See J. Rocha Dep., ECF No. 37-3, Ex. 4 at 26:12-27:16. As of February 28, 2009, Brown had no evidence that Mr. Rocha was exposed to asbestos while working in Maryland. See Brown Dep. at 115:2-9; Brown Aff. ¶ 17. Brown did, however, have evidence that Mr. Rocha likely was exposed to asbestos while working in Virginia and D.C. See Brown Dep. at 60:10-17, 98:22-99:10; Brown Aff. ¶ 18. During his deposition on October 6, 2014, as part of this litigation, John Rocha testified as to certain recollections about his father’s potential work history in Maryland. In particular, John recalled that around five- or six-years of age (ie., between October 1975 and October 1976), he had accompanied his father on one occasion from Virginia across the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, and he thought they may have gone to a jobsite in Prince George’s County, Maryland, where Mr. Rocha may have performed mudding, drywall work, and painting. See J. Rocha Dep. at 47:16-49:23, 59:17-62:18, 77:6-14; Brown Aff. ¶ 13. This deposition testimony remains the only direct evidence that Mr. Rocha may have been exposed to asbestos in Maryland. See Enslein Email, Sept. 15, 2014, ECF No, 37-9, Ex. 32. C. The First Retainer Agreement On February 10, 2009, Mrs. Rocha signed a written retainer agreement with Brown & Gould and the Lipman Law Firm (the “First Retainer”). See First Retainer, ECF No. 37-5, Ex. 7. The First Retainer provided, in relevant part: I, Nieves R. Rocha, hereby employ the Law Offices of Brown & Gould, LLP and The Lipman Law Firm ... as legal counsel to represent me, individually and as Executrix/Personal Representative of the Estate of Oscar Rocha, in connection with all claims which I may have for damages which were sustained as a result of injuries due to Oscar Rocha’s exposure to asbestos. I understand that by this Agreement you do not agree to appeal this case should it be necessary. Such representation, if necessary, may be agreed upon at a later date. Id. The First Retainer further stated that Mrs. Rocha “agree[d] that [the] Law Offices of Brown & Gould, LLP and The Lipman Law Firm have made no promises or guarantees regarding the outcome of this claim[,]” and that Mrs. Rocha had “read the above provisions and agree[d] that they constitute the entire agreement between the parties.” Id. At her deposition, Mrs. Rocha testified as to the following regarding her understanding of the First Retainer: Q. Did you understand [when you signed the First Retainer] that you were not hiring Mr. Brown to handle any appeal at that time? A. Because we don’t know if we’re going to have an appeal. Q. Right. And so again to answer my question, you were not hiring him at that time to handle an appeal; is that right? A. No. No. We just handled to get the case, the asbestos case. Q. Okay. The trial? A. The trial. N. Rocha Dep. at 78:18-79:10. The First Retainer does not provide that Brown & Gould or the Lipman Law Firm would undertake any legislative services on Mrs. Rocha’s behalf. See First Retainer, Ex. 7. D. Brown’s Legislative Activity With The DC-TLA On February 16, 2009, Brown wrote a letter to the DC-TLA in regard to the group potentially seeking a legislative clarification about the application of the statute of limitations in D.C.Code § 12-311, which deals with asbestos-related claims. See Brown Letter, Feb. 16, 2009, EOF No. 37-9, Ex. 37; Brown Dep. at 108:7-110:7. Brown did not receive a response to his letter. See Brown Dep. at 110:4-7. On June 8, 2010, after learning that another DC-TLA legislative committee meeting was convening, Brown wrote to the DC-TLA for a second time, and he included with his letter a memorandum discussing what he viewed as ambiguity in§ 12-311. See id. at 144:15-145:3, 147:4-6; Brown Letter, June 8, 2010, ECF No. 37-9, Ex. 38. Brown also proposed new language for amending the statute, and Brown hoped this language would clarify that the legislative intent of D.C.Code § 12-311 was to expand the time within which asbestos claims could be brought, not to shorten the time otherwise available under the District’s three-year limitations period in D.C.Code § 12-301(8). See Brown Dep. at 149:3-10. Specifically, Brown proposed a new “subsection (d)” for § 12-311 that provided: “This section shall not be applied to shorten the time period otherwise available to an asbestos-injured plaintiff under D.C.Code [§ ] 12-301(8) or D.C.Code [§ ] 16-2702.” Brown Letter, June 8, 2010, Ex. 38. Brown’s proposal did not include a provision stating that the amended statute would apply retroactively. See id. The DC-TLA took up the limitations issue as a legislative priority, and the D.C. Council took two interim clarifying steps before ultimately passing a final amended statute. First, the D.C. Council adopted an emergency resolution intended to clarify the original legislative intent of the statute. Specifically, Resolution 18-642, which was dated October 5, 2010, and entitled “Asbestos Statute of Limitations Clarification Emergency Declaration Resolution of 2010,” provided that the intent of D.C.Code § 12-311 was to “expand the period of time in which plaintiffs may sue to recover for asbestos injuries.” Resolution 18-642, ECF No. 37-9, Ex. 39. Second, on October 20, 2010, the D.C. Council passed an emergency act, D.C. Act 18-585, which was entitled “Asbestos Statute of Limitations Clarification Emergency Act of 2010.” D.C; Act 18-585, ECF No. 37-9, Ex. 40. The emergency act’s stated purpose was to clarify, on an emergency basis, that § 12-311 was “not intended to shorten pre-existing statutes of limitations available in any civil action for injury or illness based upon exposure to asbestos.” Id. To achieve this, the emergency act added a “subsection (d)” to § 12-311 that provided: “A plaintiff in an asbestos-injury action shall have the longer of the [one-year] limitation period prescribed by subsection (a) ... or the [three-year] limitation period prescribed by § 12-301(8).” Id. The language in the emergency resolution and the emergency act differed slightly from the language proposed by Brown. See Amato Dep., ECF No. 37-4, Ex. 6 at 104:15-105:21; Brown Letter, June 8, 2010, Ex. 38. Following this emergency legislative activity in October 2010, the final legislative process occurred, and an amended statute was codified in June 2011 with language slightly different from the emergency act. The amended version of D.C.Code § 12-311 provides: (a) In any civil action for injury or illness based upon exposure to asbestos, the time for the commencement of the action shall be the later of the following: (1) Within one year after the date the plaintiff first suffered disability; (2) Within one year after the date the plaintiff either knew, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that the disability was caused or contributed to by the exposure; or (3)Three years from the time the right to maintain the action accrues. D.C.Code § 12-311 (June 3, 2011). E.The Virginia State Court Litigation With evidence of Mr. Rocha’s likely asbestos exposure in Virginia, Brown decided to pursue a “back-up” case in Virginia state court on Mrs. Rocha’s behalf. See Brown Dep. at 67:3-18, 112:9-13; Brown Aff. ¶ 33. In making the decision to file in Virginia, Brown considered the fact that Virginia procedural rules allowed for “sleeper suits” and nonsuits, which were unavailable in D.C. See Brown Dep. at 112:9-13; Brown Aff. ¶¶ 33-34. Thus, on February 10, 2010, Brown, through Virginia lawyer Erin Jewell, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Newport News. See Compl. Civ. Act. No. 10-00316TF (Cir. Ct. Newport News, Va. Feb. 10, 2010), ECF No. 43-9, Ex. 7. On January 12, 2011, Brown instructed Jewell to nonsuit the Virginia action, see Brown Email, Jan. 12, 2011, ECF No. 44-8, Ex. 18, and on January 31, 2011, the Virginia court entered the order of nonsuit dismissing the case, see Order of Nonsuit, Civ. Act. No. 10-00316TF (Cir. Ct. Newport News, Va. Jan. 31, 2011), ECF No. 45-7, Ex. 27. F.The D.C. Superior Court Litigation On February 10, 2009, the same day that Mrs. Rocha signed the First Retainer, Brown & Gould filed a wrongful death and survival complaint on her behalf in the D.C. Superior Court against Bondex International, Inc., Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Union Carbide Corporation, and seven other companies. See Compl., Civ. Act. No. 0838-09 (D.C.Sup.Ct. Feb. 10, 2009), ECF No. 37-5, Ex. 8. As of December 2010, only Bondex, Georgia-Pacific, and Union Carbide remained as defendants in the ease because the other defendants had been dismissed through unopposed summary judgment motions. See Dkt., Civ. Act. No. 0838-09 (D.C.Sup.Ct.), ECF No. 46-5, Ex. 35. At a pre-trial hearing on December 21, 2010, the Superior Court granted summary judgment for Georgia-Pacific and Union Carbide based on the court’s interpretation of D.C.Code § 12-311. See N. Rocha Dep. at 80:19-81:15; Brown Dep. at 175:12-22. Bondex had not filed a dispositive motion, and it therefore remained as the sole defendant in the case. On January 10, 2011, the Superior Court issued an Omnibus Order explaining the summary judgment decision. See generally Omnibus Order, Ex. 9. In particular, the court found that the language in the pre-June 3, 2011, version of D.C.Code § 12-311 was “clear and unambiguous” such that the statute’s one-year limitations period applied to Mrs. Rocha’s mesothelioma claims and did not give her the option of relying on the three-year limitations period in § 12-301(8). See id. at 29. The court therefore determined that because “the disability and discovery dates ... [were] on or before February 28, 2006, when Mr. Rocha was diagnosed with mesothelioma and no longer able to work,” Mrs. Rocha “had one year from that date in which to sue” under § 12-311; accordingly, her February 10, 2009, complaint in D.C. Superior Court was time-barred. See id. at 32. Finally, looking to the recent emergency legislative activity, the court found no language in Resolution 18-642 or D.C. Act 18-585 indicating that the legislature intended for § 12-311 to apply retroactively to a complaint that was filed prior to the amendment and that had expired by the time of filing, which was the status of Mrs. Rocha’s D.C. lawsuit. See id. at 32-34. On February 4, 2011, Brown & Gould filed a notice of appeal in the D.C. Court of Appeals. See Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 37-5, Ex. 10. On March 24, 2011, the D.C. Court of Appeals dismissed Mrs. Rocha’s appeal without prejudice because the trial court had not yet entered a final judgment as to all defendants. See Dismissal Notice, ECF No. 37-5, Ex. 11. On April 22, 2011, Brown & Gould filed a consent motion to reinstate the Superior Court action and for the entry of a final order dismissing the last defendant, Bondex. See Consent Mot., ECF No. 37-5, Ex. 12. The Superior Court entered a corrected final order effecting the full dismissal of the lawsuit on April 26, 2011. See Final Order, ECF No. 37-5, Ex. 13. G. The Relationship Between Mrs. Rocha and Defendants Following The Omnibus Order Following the Omnibus Order, Mrs. Rocha, Michael Rocha, and Brown engaged in numerous conversations regarding potential terms and conditions by which Defendants might represent Mrs. Rocha during an appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals. See, e.g., M. Rocha Dep. at 135:19-136:3. For example, in a letter dated March 4, 2011, Brown explained to Mrs. Rocha that the First Retainer “does not contemplate that we will appeal the case,” and Brown therefore proposed a new retainer based on a contingency fee arrangement and with the option of “retaining an appellate specialist” from another law firm at a flat rate of $45,000 to assist Defendants. See Brown Letter, Mar. 4, 2011, ECF No. 37-5, Ex. 14. Mrs. Rocha declined Brown’s offer to sign a new retainer for the appeal at this time, in part due to the expected costs under Brown’s proposal. See N. Rocha Dep. at 84:12-85:13, 87:6-10; M. Rocha Dep. at 128:20-130:18. After the March 4 letter, Brown attempted to communicate with Mrs. Rocha and her son throughout April and May regarding whether Mrs. Rocha would sign a new retainer for the appeal, but the Rochas mostly ignored Brown’s many phone messages, emails, and letters: Letter dated April 12, 2011: “David [Lipman] and I find ourselves hamstrung by our inability to communicate with our client, Nieves. Numerous phone messages have gone unreturned on the home machine and to each .of your cell phones over the last few weeks. We have tried to schedule conversations and have been unsuccessful.” Brown Letter, Apr. 12, 2011, ECF No. 37-5, Ex. 15. Letter dated April 29, 2011: “I have left, this week, additional phone messages for you and Michael. I also sent an email to Michael on Tuesday asking to speak with you on Wednesday or Thursday. None of my messages were returned .... [T]his gives us pause in continuing in our representation.” Brown Letter, Apr. 29, 2011, ECF No. 37-5, Ex. 16. Letter dated May 6, 2011: “It is extremely important that we speak.... Again, the deadline to file the appeal is approaching.” Brown Letter, May 6, 2011, ECF No. 37-6, Ex. 17. Letter dated May 12, 2011: “I am not sure what more I can do in order to try and have a conversation with you about the need for you to decide how you wish to proceed with the appeal of your case — if at all. Despite my hand-delivered letter to you, dated April 29, 2011, my telephone call to you on May 5, 2011, and my letter to you dated May 6, 2011 delivered via FedEx, I cannot get you to call me or communicate in any way, and I have concerns about the upcoming deadline.” Brown Letter, May 12, 2011, ECF No. 37-8, Ex. 18. Letter dated May 20, 2011: “Based upon our telephone conversation earlier today, it appears that we have reached an impasse in our ability to communicate with you regarding what direction, if any, you wish us to take relative to the impending deadline.... However, you indicated in our telephone conversation today that you are presently unwilling to enter into the Retainer Agreement.” Brown Letter, May 20, 2011, ECF No. 37-8, Ex. 19. Consistent with Mrs. Rocha’s rejection of Brown’s March 4 proposal, one issue delaying the signing of a new retainer was concern by Mrs. Rocha and her son about the fees and costs incurred under the First Retainer, as well as the potential costs of Defendants’ representation during the appeal. See M. Rocha Dep. at 128:20-130:18. Mrs. Rocha therefore would not sign a new retainer until these concerns about past and future costs were resolved. See id. at 133:10-134:6. In addition, Mrs. Rocha demanded that any new retainer must grant her the right to pre-approve expenses going forward, see id. at 136:4-137:15, and the Rochas also expressed concerns about Defendants’ substantive handling of the D.C. and Virginia actions, see id. 146:14-147:22. During this period after the dismissal of the Superior Court litigation, Mrs. Rocha and her son considered alternatives to signing a new retainer with Defendants, including whether they should obtain new counsel for the appeal or proceed pro se. See id. at 139:5-140:22, 142:18-144:22. Mrs. Rocha’s actions between March and early May 2011 left Brown uncertain about whether she would sign a new agreement retaining his firm for the appeal: Letter dated April 29, 2011: “You need to decide whether you intend to appeal the judgment entered in your case and, if so, who you wish to handle the appeal and under what terms.” Brown Letter, Apr. 29, 2011, Ex. 16. Letter dated May 6, 2011: “Please confirm whether you agree with the recommendations we have provided to you on how to proceed with the appeal of your case. If so, we will promptly send out a new engagement letter for your signature and on receipt of same, we will file the appeal on your behalf.” Brown Letter, May 6, 2011, Ex. 17. Letter dated May 12, 2011: “Should you wish that we proceed on your behalf, please find enclosed a retainer agreement for your signature.... Please let us know as soon as possible how you intend to proceed. In the event you wish to retain us, we must receive the signed Retainer Agreement no later than May 23, 2011.” Brown Letter, May 12, 2011, Ex. 18. Thus, on May 20, 2011, with Mrs. Rocha still having not signed a new retainer, Brown sent her a letter stating that “[t]his concludes our representation of you at the trial level in this matter [but] please keep in mind that we stand ready, willing, and able to proceed with the appeal of [the Superior Court] order if you wish us to do so.” Brown Letter, May 20, 2011, Ex. 19. On May 23, 2011, Brown held a two-hour telephone conference with Mrs. Rocha and Michael Rocha, and Brown gave them until 5:00 PM that night to decide whether to sign the proposed retainer for the appeal. See Brown Letter, May 23, 2011, ECF No. 37-8, Ex. 20. As of this date, Mrs. Rocha remained interested in pursuing the appeal pro se or hiring new counsel, and Brown mailed the Rochas the relevant trial court paperwork in the event that they decided to file a notice of appeal on their own. See id.; M. Rocha Dep. at 157:3-13. H. The Second Retainer Agreement And The Second Notice of Appeal At 4:50 PM on May 23, 2011, Michael Rocha emailed Brown to inform him that Mrs. Rocha would sign a new retainer for Defendants to represent her during the appeal before the D.C. Court of Appeals (the “Second Retainer”). See M. Rocha Email, ECF No. 37-8, Ex. 21. The Second Retainer differed from the First Retainer in that it changed the compensation format to a contingency fee agreement based on the total amount recovered in the case. See Second Retainer, ECF No. 37-8, Ex. 22. The next day, May 24, a Brown & Gould attorney filed a second notice of appeal at the D.C. Superior Court on Mrs. Rocha’s behalf. See Dkt., Civ. Act. No. 0838-09 (D.C.Sup.Ct.). I. Defendants’ Withdrawal From The Second Representation On June 9, 2011, Brown sent a letter to Mrs. Rocha stating that Defendants would no longer represent her in the appeal due to “breakdowns in ... communications” and a “lack of cooperation.” See Brown Letter, June 9, 2011, ECF No. 37-8, Ex. 23. Between the signing of the Second Retainer on May 23 and Brown’s letter on June 9, the only service provided by Defendants was filing the second notice of appeal on May 24. See Brown Aff. ¶ 44. On June 10, 2011, Brown & Gould filed a motion to withdraw in the D.C. Court of Appeals. See Mot. Withdraw, Case No. 11-CV-651 (D.C.CtApp.), ECF No. 45-8, Ex. 28. The Court of Appeals entered an order granting the motion to withdraw on June 28, 2011. See Order, June 28, 2011, ECF No. 37-8, Ex. 24. After the withdrawal, Mrs. Rocha retained a new law firm to represent her, and this firm handled all substantive aspects of the appeal, including briefing and oral argument. See Brown Aff. ¶ 44; N. Rocha Dep. at 103:9-18. J. The Role Of David Lipman David Lipman funded the advertisement that first led Mrs. Rocha to contact Brown & Gould about her husband’s death. See M. Rocha Dep. at 174:21-22; see also 2d Am. Compl., ECF No. 40, at ¶¶ 19-20. Lipman was a party to the First and Second Retainers, see First Retainer, Ex. 7; Second Retainer, Ex. 22, and his role during the Superior Court matter included financing the litigation, being available to Brown as a consultant, and assisting Brown if the case went to trial. See Brown Dep. at 95:1-8. Lipman was not present at the February 10, 2009, meeting between Mrs. Rocha and Brown. See N. Rocha Dep. at 139:15-140:18; M. Rocha Dep. at 173:19-175:4; Lipman Dep., ECF No. 38-3, Ex. 3 at 7:18-8:8. Instead, Lipman first spoke with Mrs. Rocha in late 2010. See N. Rocha Dep. at 139:15-140:18; Lipman Dep. at 16:4-6. Lipman did not promise to perform any legislative work on Mrs. Rocha’s behalf, nor did Lipman voluntarily engage in such activity. See Lipman Stmt. Facts, ECF No. 38-1, at ¶4. K. Plaintiffs Present Lawsuit And The Pending Motions On June 9, 2014, Mrs. Rocha filed a Complaint against Defendants in D.C. Superior Court, and she filed a nearly identical First Amended Complaint with the Superior Court on June 22, 2014. On July 3, 2014, the B & G Defendants removed the action to this Court. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. On January 9, 2015, Mrs. Rocha filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting three counts against Defendants: legal malpractice in Count I, breach of fiduciary duty in Count II, and breach of contract in Count III based on “express promises to Mrs. Rocha that [Defendants] would get the District of Columbia statute of limitations changed to make her claim timely there[.]” See 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 132. Now before the Court are the following dispositive motions: (1) the B & G Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all counts, see B & G Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 37; (2) Lip-man’s motion for summary judgment, which incorporates the B & G Defendants’ motion and asserts additional arguments specific to Lipman’s role in the representation, see Lipman’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 38-2; and (3) Mrs. Rocha’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the legal malpractice claim in Count I was timely filed, see Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 43. III. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment may be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C.Cir.2006). A fact is “material” if it is capable of affecting the substantive outcome of the litigation. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 895. A dispute is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007); Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 895. When Rule 56 is invoked, the moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute as to any material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). When the moving party does not bear the burden of persuasion at trial, its burden “may be discharged by ‘showing’ — that is, pointing out to the district court — that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case.” Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party, to defeat the motion, must designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Though courts must view this evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor, see Grosdidier v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, Chairman, 709 F.3d 19, 23-24 (D.C.Cir.2013), the nonmoving party must show more than “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of’ his position — “there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for [the nonmoving party].” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The nonmoving party, moreover, “may not rest upon mere allegation or denials of his pleading but must present affirmative evidence showing a genuine issue for trial.” Laningham v. U.S. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1241 (D.C.Cir.1987) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Finally, this Court has supplemented Rule 56 with Local Civil Rule 7(h), pursuant to which a party filing a motion for summary judgment must include a statement of material facts as to which that party contends there is no genuine dispute. See also Herbert v. Architect of Capitol, 766 F.Supp.2d 59, 63-64 (D.D.C.2011). “The party opposing the motion must, in turn, submit a statement enumerating all material facts which the party contends are genuinely disputed.” Id. at 63 (citing LCvR 7(h)(1)). This local rule “places the burden on the parties and their counsel, who are most familiar with the litigation and the record, to crystallize for the district court the material facts and relevant portions of the record.” Jackson v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dun ner, 101 F.3d 145, 151 (D.C.Cir.1996). Accordingly, “evidence laying dormant in the record is not enough, for the district court is not obliged to sift through hundreds of pages of depositions, affidavits, and interrogatories in order to make [its] own analysis and determination of what may, or may not, be a genuine issue of material disputed fact.” Potter v. District of Columbia, 558 F.3d 542, 550 (D.C.Cir.2009) (quotation marks omitted). IV. ANALYSIS Mrs. Rocha brings claims against Defendants under D.C. law for legal malpractice (Count I), breach of fiduciary duty (Count II), and breach of contract (Count III). Defendants jointly move for summary judgment as to all of these counts, including Mrs. Rocha’s various theories of liability for her legislative activity claim in Count III. Mrs. Rocha, on the other hand, moves for summary judgment on the question of whether the legal malpractice claim in Count I was timely filed. Upon consideration of the parties’ motions, the memoranda in support thereof and opposition thereto, and the evidentiary record submitted by the parties, the Court will rule as-follows. First, the Court grants judgment for Defendants as to Count I on the basis that, under the “continuous representation” rule, Mrs. Rocha’s legal malpractice claim is time-barred by the limitations period in D.C.Code § 12-301(8). Second, and alternatively, the Court concludes that judgment for Defendants as to Count I also is appropriate because the legal malpractice claim fails on the merits due to the “judgmental immunity” doctrine and the lack of proximate cause. Third, the Court grants judgment for Defendants as to Count II on the basis that the breach of fiduciary duty claim is not separate and distinct from the failed legal malpractice claim in Count I. And fourth, the Court grants judgment for Defendants as to Count III on the basis that Mrs. Rocha fails to state any cognizable theory of liability for the legislative activity claim, including her varying contract, quasi-contract, and “Good Samaritan” tort theories. Accordingly, the Court denies Mrs. Rocha’s motion and enters judgment in favor of Defendants as to all counts. A. Count I: Plaintiffs Legal Malpractice Claim Is Time-Barred Through Count I, Mrs. Rocha alleges that, in early 2009, Defendants committed legal malpractice by failing to file an asbestos-related lawsuit on behalf of her and her late husband in Maryland state court. See 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶2, 4, 33-35, 123-25. Defendants and Mrs. Rocha each move for summary judgment in their favor on the question of whether this claim was timely filed under the three-year statute of limitations in D.C.Code § 12-301(8). In the end, the Court concludes that Mrs. Rocha’s claim was filed after the expiration of the limitations period, and the Court therefore grants judgment for Defendants on Count I and denies judgment for Mrs. Rocha. 1. D.C.Code § 12-301(8) And The “Discovery Rule” To determine whether Mrs. Rocha’s legal malpractice claim was timely filed on June 9, 2014, the Court must resolve when the limitations period began running. Under D.C.Code § 12-301(8), which is the District’s catch-all limitations provision, legal malpractice claims must be brought within three years “from the time the right to maintain the action accrues.” See also Seed Co. Ltd. v. Westerman, No. CV 8-00355, 62 F.Supp.3d 56, 63, 2014 WL 3746957, at *4 (D.D.C. July 30, 2014). “In normal negligence actions — where the harm is often apparent — an injury occurs when the harm is suffered. In legal malpractice actions, however — when the harm is often not immediately identifiable— courts apply the ‘discovery rule’ to determine when the statute of limitations begins to run.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also Bleck v. Power, 955 A.2d 712, 715 (D.C.2008). “The discovery rule states that a claim accrues when the plaintiff becomes aware — or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have become aware — of (1) the harm, (2) its cause in fact, and (3) some evidence of wrongdoing.” Seed, 62 F.Supp.3d at 63, 2014 WL 3746957, at *4 (citing Bleck, 955 A.2d at 715; Wagner v. Sellinger, 847 A.2d 1151, 1154 (D.C.2004)). Defendants argue that under the discovery rule, the limitations period began to run when the D.C. Superior Court issued its Omnibus Order on January 10, 2011. See B & G Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 12. Mrs. Rocha, on the other hand, argues that the relevant date under the discovery rule is April 26, 2011, which is when the Superior Court entered the corrected final order dismissing the entire suit, because “[i]t was at this point that Mrs. Rocha suffered the harm of having her case dismissed with prejudice as a result of Defendants’ negligence and was damaged.” See Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 22. Mrs. Rocha’s argument misses the mark. Her legal malpractice claim alleges that Defendants should have filed a lawsuit in Maryland, and this contention is precipitated by the fact that on January 10, 2011, the D.C. Superior Court ruled that her asbestos-related claims were time-barred under the court’s application of D.C.Code § 12-311. In other words, when the Superior Court issued the Omnibus Order on January 10, Mrs. Rocha learned (or should have learned) that she no longer had a cognizable claim in D.C., and it was at this point that the harm from Defendants’ failure to file a lawsuit in Maryland became (or should have become) apparent. The April 26 final order merely dismissed the last defendant so that Mrs. Rocha could file an appeal; notice of the harm occurred well before that point. See Wagner, 847 A.2d at 1154 (“[T]he plaintiff need not be fully informed about the injury for the statute to begin running; she need only have some knowledge of some injury.... [Kjnowledge is deemed sufficient if the plaintiff has reason to suspect that the defendant did something wrong, even if the full extent of the wrongdoing is not yet known.” (internal citation omitted)); Knight v. Furlow, 553 A.2d 1232, 1236 (D.C.1989) (“The key issue is client knowledge of some injury, its cause, and related wrongdoing.”). Accordingly, the Court finds that under the discovery rule, the limitations period for the legal malpractice claim began to run on January 10, 2011. And if that were the end of the analysis today, there is no question that Mrs. Rocha’s claim would be untimely, as her complaint was filed approximately three-and-a-half years later on June 9, 2014. But the, limitations discussion does not stop with the discovery rule; instead, the Court next must consider an exception to the discovery rule that may grant a plaintiff additional time to sue her counsel by tolling the accrual date for malpractice actions: the “continuous representation” rule. 2. ' “Continuous Representation” Rule Analysis In cases of alleged legal malpractice, the D.C. Court of Appeals has adopted the “continuous representation” rule, “which tolls the statute of limitations on legal malpractice claims until ‘the attorney’s representation concerning the particular matter in issue is terminated’ ” — even if the client was on actual or inquiry notice of the attorneys malpractice before then. Seed, 62 F.Supp.3d at 63-64, 2014 WL 3746957, at *5 (quoting R.D.H. Commc’ns, Ltd. v. Winston, 700 A.2d 766, 768 (D.C.1997)); see also Bleck, 955 A.2d at 715. The purpose of this exception to the discovery rule “is to respect the attorney-client privilege and to avoid placing the client in ‘the untenable position of suing his attorney while the latter continues to represent him.’ ” Seed, 62 F.Supp.3d at 64, 2014 WL 3746957, at *6 (quoting R.D.H. Commc’ns, 700 A.2d at 768). Under D.C. law, however, what constitutes the “particular matter in issue” and when that matter was “terminated” are questions of fact about which “there is little guidance.” Id. at 64, 2014 WL 3746957, at *5. Nevertheless, to resolve the motions for summary judgment, the Court must answer those two questions next. Through their motion, Defendants assert that the “particular matter in issue” was their representation of Mrs. Rocha before the D.C. Superior Court under the First Retainer, which, they argue, concluded as a result of either the Omnibus Order on January 10, 2011, or at the latest, the final order on April 26, 2011. See B & G Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 14; B & G Defs.’ Reply Supp. Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 51, at 6-7. Defendants further argue that, first, their discussions with Mrs. Rocha after the Omnibus Order about a new retainer did not continue the original representation, and second, the Second Retainer is irrelevant to the limitations analysis because that agreement involved a new representation for a different “matter” than the First Retainer. See B & G Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 16-18. Lastly, Defendants argue that any assistance they gave to Mrs. Rocha after the conclusion of the Superior Court litigation was minimal and insufficient to extend the representation. See B & G Defs.’ Reply Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 6-7. Mrs. Rocha argues that under the continuous representation rule, her complaint was timely because the limitations period was tolled until the D.C. Court of Appeals granted Brown & Gould’s motion to withdraw as her counsel on June 28, 2011. See Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 22-23. According to Mrs. Rocha, no earlier date is appropriate because Defendants remained her counsel of record and filed papers on her behalf in the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals after the Omnibus Order, such as the two notices of appeal. See id. Finally, Mrs. Rocha argues that Defendants’ communications with her after the Omnibus Order demonstrate a continuous attorney-client relationship through June 28, 2011, regardless of the First Retainer’s terms. See id. In effect, Mrs. Rocha’s argument aims to create a continuous representation by merging the Superior Court matter into the Court of Appeals matter on the basis that Defendants played a role in each. In offering this theory, however, Mrs. Rocha overlooks the fact that the continuous representation rule applies narrowly to toll the limitations period only until the particular matter in issue — that is, the specific matter in which the alleged legal malpractice occurred — is terminated; consequently, “subsequent general representation of the plaintiffs regarding matters unrelated to the initial transaction does not warrant the application of the doctrine.” De May v. Moore & Bruce, LLP, 584 F.Supp.2d 170, 181 (D.D.C.2008) (quotation marks omitted); see also Jones v. Lattimer, 29 F.Supp.3d 5, 15 (D.D.C.2014) (“[T]he continuous representation rule does not apply where the attorney represents the same client in a wholly different matter.”). Here, the original representation between Mrs. Rocha and Defendants was defined by the First Retainer, which specifically excluded from the scope of that representation any appeal of the Superior Court matter. See First Retainer, Ex. 7 (“I understand that by this Agreement you do not agree to appeal this case should it be necessary.”). Indeed, Mrs. Rocha acknowledged in her deposition that, when signing the First Retainer, she knew that she was hiring Defendants exclusively for the trial court proceedings, and she also understood that a new retainer was required if Defendants were to represent her during an appeal. See N. Rocha Dep. at 78:18-79:10. Despite the plain language of the First Retainer, Mrs. Rocha attempts to rely on Judge Huvelle’s decision in De May v. Moore & Bruce, LLP, to support her position that the first representation continued after the Superior Court’s final order, but the Court finds that De May does not compel such a result. In De May, the plaintiffs had retained the defendant-attorneys to “oversee the overall management of [plaintiffs’] assets,” and Judge Huvelle therefore found that the continuous representation rule applied to work defendants had performed both in setting up trusts for the plaintiffs and later in representing the plaintiffs in an appeal to the Tax Court. See De May, 584 F.Supp.2d at 180-84. In reaching this conclusion, Judge Huvelle explained that Dé May was “not a situation where the lawyer’s general representation [was] separate and distinct from the alleged malpractice,” but rather, “defendants’ roles in creating and amending the trusts, administering the trusts, and defending the trusts against the IRS were all inextricably intertwined and without interruption for almost a decade.” Id. at 182. Different facts are in play here. Specifically, Mrs. Rocha and Defendants intentionally contracted through the First Retainer to separate the Superior Court representation from a potential future representation during an appeal — a future representation that would (and did) require a new agreement with new terms and a new scope. The parties never agreed to enter a broad, ongoing representation like that in De May. As such, Mrs. Rocha was on notice from the start that the first representation would terminate when the Superior Court matter ended and that a new agreement was required if she desired to retain Defendants for an appeal. When attorneys and their client agree to formally compartmentalize the representation in such a specific and unambiguous manner, the Court declines to simply ignore the legal services contract for purposes of the continuous representation rule analysis, as Mrs. Rocha appears to advise. Cf. Shelton v. The Ritz Carlton Hotel Co., 550 F.Supp.2d 74, 80 (D.D.C.2008) (“[U]nder both D.C. and federal law one who signs a contract has a duty to read it and is obligated according to its terms.”); Hart v. Vt. Inv. Ltd. P’ship, 667 A.2d 578, 584 (D.C.1995) C‘[W]e know of no legal authority permitting the court to rewrite the contract by inserting a limitation which does not appear therein.”). Indeed, even in De May, the primary case on which Mrs. Rocha relies, Judge Huvelle considered a similar possibility by asking whether there was any reason to define the “particular matter in issue” more narrowly, but the Court found that “the facts relating to defendants’ legal work cannot be conveniently divided into transactional work versus litigation given the extensive overlap between these functions.” De May, 584 F.Supp.2d at 182. Thus, rather than De May, the facts here are more similar to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Civ. No. 10-0454, 2012 WL 8466139 (D.D.C. Feb. 2, 2012). There, Judge Bates declined to apply the continuous representation rule because the “particular matter in issue” was the defendant-law firm’s patent prosecution work for the plaintiff, and the Court found that this work was legally separate and distinct from subsequent patent infringement litigation in which the defendant played only a minor role. See id. at *13-16. In reaching this conclusion, Judge Bates emphasized that one important reason for drawing the line between the two matters was that the plaintiff “it: self considered the representation ‘divided into transactional work versus litigation.’ ” Id. at *16 (quoting De May, 584 F.Supp.2d at 182). Likewise here, the representation under the First Retainer included only the trial court litigation, and the alleged malpractice occurred only within that representation, not during the later appellate representation for which a new retainer was signed. Thus, given the parties’ agreement, the “particular matter in issue” ended, at the latest, with the Superior Court’s corrected final order on April 26, 2011. Following this approach, the continuous representation rule tolled the limitations period from January 10, 2011, to April 26, 2011, which still is insufficient to make the legal malpractice claim in Mrs. Rocha’s June 9, 2014, complaint timely under D.C.Code § 12-301(8). The Court, however, recognizes that an attorney’s duties to a client may arise not just through a contract but also “ ‘from the establishment of a fiduciary relationship between attorney and client.’ ” In re Samad, 51 A.3d 486, 497 (D.C.2012) (quoting In re Ryan, 670 A.2d 375, 379 (D.C.1996)); see also Heine v. Colton, Hartnick, Yamin & Sheresky, 786 F.Supp. 360, 368 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (“While the employment of an attorney by a client is largely governed by the contractual provisions of the retainer, elements of trust and confidence endemic in the attorney/client relationship add a dimension to the retainer beyond the terms of the retainer agreement.” (quotation marks omitted)). As such, the contract between the parties, though highly instructive, is not necessarily dispositive here. The Court thus finds it appropriate to consider whether any other facts support holding that the original representation continued beyond the end of the Superior Court litigation. In short, the Court’s review of the undisputed facts of this case reveals no basis for upending the plain terms of the First Retainer and extending the relevant representation past April 26, 2011. To start, on March 4, 2011, Brown sent a letter to Mrs. Rocha reiterating that the First Retainer covered only the Superior Court matter and proposing new terms for a retainer that would apply to an appeal. See Brown Letter, Mar. 4, 2011, Ex. 14. Mrs. Rocha declined Brown’s offer. See N. Rocha Dep. at 84:12-85:13, 87:6-10; M. Rocha Dep. at 128:20-130:18. The relationship between Mrs. Rocha and Defendants then continued to deteriorate over the course of March, April, and early May, as Mrs. Rocha ignored Brown’s attempts to negotiate a new retainer and to discuss a litigation strategy moving forward. See, e.g., Brown Letter, Apr. 12, 2011, Ex. 15; Brown Letter, Apr. 29, 2011, Ex. 16; Brown Letter, May 6, 2011, Ex. 17; Brown Letter, May 12, 2011, Ex. 18. Further, during this period in early 2011, Mrs. Rocha and her son considered hiring new counsel for the appeal or proceeding pro se, and Defendants therefore were left wondering for several months whether Mrs. Rocha would hire them for the appeal. See, e.g., Brown Letter, Apr. 29, 2011, Ex. 16; Brown Letter, May 12, 2011, Ex. 18; M. Rocha Dep. at 139:5-140:22, 142:18-144:22. Still without a decision from Mrs. Rocha nearly a month after the final order and several months after the Omnibus Order, Brown sent a letter to Mrs. Rocha on May 20, 2011, unequivocally stating that “[t]his concludes our representation of you at the trial level in this matter.” Brown Letter, May 20, 2011, Ex. 19. In the end, Michael Rocha did not inform Brown that Mrs. Rocha would sign the Second Retainer until ten minutes before Brown’s 5:00 PM deadline on May 23, 2011. See M. Rocha Email, Ex. 21. Overall, the events during the months between the Omnibus Order and the signing of the Second Retainer on May 23— e.g., the prolonged communication breakdown, Brown’s letter informing Mrs. Rocha that the representation had ended, and Mrs. Rocha’s refusal to sign a new retainer while considering alternatives for the appeal, including the option to hire new counsel — demonstrate that the original attorney-client relationship had ceased in a manner fully consistent with the terms of the First Retainer. See, e.g., Williams v. Mordkofsky, 901 F.2d 158, 163 (D.C.Cir.1990) (finding that the continuous representation rule was inapplicable when the attorney and client had become adversarial, and the client was no longer relying on the attorney for legal advice); Flynt v. Brownfield, Bowen & Bally, 882 F.2d 1048, 1051 (6th Cir.1989) (”[C]onduet dissolving the essential mutual confidence between attorney and client signals the termination of the professional relationship.” (quotation marks omitted)); Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d 164, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365, 750 N.E.2d 67, 72-73 (2001) (reasoning that even if the client contemplated a future representation, “the continuous representation toll would nonetheless end once the client is informed or otherwise put on notice of the attorney’s withdrawal from representation”); Hancock v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 472 A.2d 867, 869 (D.C.1984) (explaining, in the context of a motion to withdraw as counsel, that “[w]hen a client leaves telephone calls and letters unanswered, thus refusing to communicate with his attorney, ... the attorney should not be forced to proceed with the case”). Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the plain terms of the First Retainer, and the Court therefore concludes that the relevant “matter in issue” terminated at the final conclusion of the Superior Court litigation on April 26, 2011. Mrs. Rocha offers several arguments for why the relationship did not end on April 26, but the Court finds none of them persuasive. For example, without citing any evidence, Mrs. Rocha suggests that “Defendants repeatedly offered legal advice and counsel to Mrs. Rocha about how to proceed with her case after the entry of final judgment” by the Superior Court. See Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 23-24. Brown, however, only offered “advice” to Mrs. Rocha, if at all, in the context of attempting to negotiate a new retainer for the appeal and to prevent Mrs. Rocha from waiving her appeal rights by missing a filing deadline. The Court declines to apply the continuous representation rule in a way that would punish attorneys for providing such minimal assistance to protect their client’s rights after the initial matter concludes. See Williams, 901 F.2d at 163 (rejecting argument that the continuous representation rule was “broad enough to allow extension of the rule to any negotiations between an attorney and a former client that seek to repair damage done during the representation”); Ency-clopaedia Britannica, 2012 WL 8466139, at *15 (refusing to apply the continuous representation rule to an attorney’s “minimal participation in a client’s ongoing affairs” because attorneys then “would have substantial disincentives from providing even the barest assistance to clients regarding matters in which they are knowledgeable based on their prior representation of the client”). Mrs. Rocha also argues that “Brown continued to refer to [her] as his client in correspondence with her on the day she signed a retainer agreement for the appeal,” and that the limitations period was tolled because Defendants filed the second notice of appeal on May 24, 2011. See Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 24. These events, however, relate only to the representation under the Second Retainer; they suggest nothing about continuing the relationship under the First Retainer, which Mrs. Rocha knew had terminated by this point. Alternatively, even accepting Mrs. Rocha’s argument that the relationship continued through the filing of the second notice of appeal, this event occurred well before June 9, 2011, such that it is insufficient to make the legal malpractice claim timely. In the end, Mrs. Rocha offers only one argument for why the limitations period should be tolled until after June 9, 2011: The D.C. Court of Appeals did not grant Brown & Gould’s motion to withdraw as counsel until June 28, 2011. See id. at 28. Mrs. Rocha’s position, however, ignores the nature of the continuous representation rule, which only “tolls the statute of limitations on legal malpractice claims until the attorney’s representation concerning the particular matter in issue is terminated.” Seed, 62 F.Supp.3d at 63, 2014 WL 3746957, at *5 (quotation marks omitted; emphasis added). As defined by the contract and confirmed by the actions of the parties, the “matter in issue” here was Defendants’ representation during the Superior Court litigation under the First Retainer, which ended on April 26, 2011, at the latest. The Court, moreover, finds no support for Mrs. Rocha’s suggestion that the formal withdrawal date, rather than the parties’ contract and conduct, should control the continuous representation rule analysis. Cf. Casas-Cordero v. Salz, No. 11-CV-1713, 2012 WL 2190879, at *4 (S.D.Cal. June 14, 2012) (“[A]n attorney’s representation does not depend on formal termination, and thus the notice of withdrawal alone fails to demonstrate continuous representation.... Rather, an attorney’s representation ends when the parties so agree.” (internal citation omitted)); Aaron v. Roemer, Wallens & Mineaux, LLP, 272 A.D.2d 752, 707 N.Y.S.2d 711, 714 (2000) (when “the attorney promptly moves to withdraw and the client acknowledges in writing an irreparable deterioration of the attorney-client relationship, ... the relationship necessary to invoke the continuous [representation] rule did not persist until formal termination ..., but rather ceased with the disruption of the client’s trust and reliance”). Finally, courts in this Circuit consistently look to the continuous representation rule’s purpose — which is “to avoid placing a client in the untenable position of suing his attorney while the latter continues to represent him,” Williams, 901 F.2d at 163 — when determining whether to apply the rule to a particular set of facts. See, e.g., Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2012 WL 8466139, at *15 (the “purpose of the continuous representation rule would not be served by triggering the rule” under the facts of the case); Seed, 62 F.Supp.3d at 64, 2014 WL 3746957, at *6 (“Any other ruling [under the facts of the case] would run afoul of the continuous representation rule’s purpose.”). Here, the Court finds that Mrs. Rocha was never placed in an “untenable” position that prevented her from filing a lawsuit against her counsel during the period between the April 26, 2011, final order (or even the January 10, 2011, Omnibus Order) and the signing of the Second Retainer — a period during which no substantive litigation activity was occurring before either the D.C. Superior Court or the D.C. Court of Appeals. To the contrary, Mrs. Rocha received notice that the representation under the First Retainer had terminated, and up through May 23, 2011, she made the decision not to continue the relationship during this dormant period by refusing Brown’s many attempts to negotiate a new retainer. Thus, Mrs. Rocha had no reasonable expectation during this time that Defendants would continue representing her in the future, as she was the one who refused to maintain a relationship of trust and communication by ignoring Brown’s efforts while actively considering her alternatives for the future. Absent a sufficient hardship preventing Mrs. Rocha from filing a malpractice lawsuit during the period after the original representation ended, the Court finds no policy justification for applying the rule to toll the limitations period beyond that termination date. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the legal malpractice claim in Mrs. Rocha’s June 9, 2014, complaint is time-barred. B. Count I: Plaintiffs Legal Malpractice Claim Fails On The Merits Even if Mrs. Rocha’s legal malpractice claim were timely filed on June 9, 2014, the Court finds that the claim also would fail on the merits, which provides an alternative basis for entering judgment in favor of Defendants on Count I. 1. Plaintiff Concedes That The Judgmental Immunity Doctrine Applies To prevail on a legal malpractice claim under D.C. law, a plaintiff must demonstrate the applicable standard of care, a breach of that standard by the attorney, and that the attorney’s breach proximately caused the complained of harm. See Biomet Inc. v. Finnegan Henderson LLP, 967 A.2d 662, 664 (D.C.2009); Chase v. Gilbert, 499 A.2d 1203, 1211 (D.C.1985). D.C. courts also apply the “judgmental immunity” doctrine in legal malpractice cases, which forecloses liability against an attorney when “(1) the alleged error is one of professional judgment, and (2) the attorney exercised reasonable care in making [that] judgment.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2012 WL 8466139, at *17; see also Biomet, 967 A.2d at 665. Application of this doctrine is especially appropriate when an attorney made an error of judgment regarding an “unsettled proposition of law” because “an attorney is not expected, much less required, to accurately predict developments in the law.” Biomet, 967 A.2d at 668; see also Mills, 647 A.2d at 1122 (“An attorney is not liable for an error of judgment regarding an unsettled proposition of law.”). Defendants move for summary judgment on the basis that the judgmental immunity doctrine bars Mrs. Rocha’s legal malpractice claim. See B & G Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 27. In particular, Defendants argue that the decision about whether to file in Maryland or elsewhere required the application of their professional judgment to unsettled legal questions regarding the various state limitations periods in play. See id. at 30-