ÿWPC) ™m!¿2ïm¨S5åo›'&+ZPAkŽ€/žf¨œSC£@@ ¿ï$¸Rw¥B̉™…1:ƒ2 «Åžâ€«9Ä8ÂT‰r=!®œ‡ÑÒ÷¸ÈÓ¨X‘Â>M0õK«#êFiŸÐ.ƒÊ ¤d`~#PÐ ÍN"¸°˜u7 ÷{N¬3ŽcÕçY 9¬ƒGmQ÷šÅÜ^Ôº hN¯ªTTV_(uRU ÝŠyûóUN*¢Êhªƒä¥ïjrÒbÛÞÀJŽøØiLÃÖ©³gwºB%'ÆjAò ŒÔa’³ˆÜ°¥LÑÞ),½x4‚¦ÃàµkܱêþWB÷þÏxçø_m&eëyP_Çèr5ØTÚÅVÇ¡žÖ¯ãcë^žº;¿è’Ö«ÔZ#ù¬œ`kðS„Y¤Ä„–!2éQí§ÃMâÄ9Ö×o׈âöFçÓšÚÜ ®˜Ù˜_E¤ô5ðÑÖmÐfQƒ.¾5··+Ù.‚ÏŽßàMªq:køu‹Vz¹ƒÞ·&PA6Ú’Š ‚hš °0š„Îgø(]2ü>„ ‚ƒI©}Øyn¬£Âhti|!ás'iü[­Ž‚9v±ŸXDd[ñošÕ>‘Y‚X SÎb %\^ b 0ˆnU Nöw D4Nb zqÒë½ m¿ #ÉÖ UNŸ Æí Ƴ ÆyÆ?ÑNÖ 0DØØEb 0ë&&&& B 0¤. D3Ò D- 0K22 AS}ÆÐ 0¤– 0D: A«~»!©Þ.Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular=ƒ.ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S04\CLERKKNOXÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ÇÝ ƒR46$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô½u ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔApparently,€the€government€filed€13€separate€civil€forfeiture€complaints.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2yÛ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€U»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô ™ò»»Ô d(|3f$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€U»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3f$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€U»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€U»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼U»»»ÔÑ8€XUXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î(UÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼U»îî( #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€June€20,€2003Ð üL ÐÔ‡XXUX»¼UÔÌò òÔ#†¼U»XXXUý#ÔDAVID€T.€HILLòòóó€v.€HERBERT€S.€Ô_ÔMONCIERÔ_Ô,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XXUX»¼UÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€1„514„02€€€€€€Dale€C.€Workman,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌññFILED€JUNE€30,€Ô_Ô2003ññÔ_ÔÐ ¾   Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„00075„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓDavid€T.€Hill€sued€Herbert€S.€Ô_ÔMoncierÔ_Ô€and€David€S.€Ô_ÔWiglerÔ_Ô€(ð ðthe€Attorneysðð),€both€of€whom€areÐ xÈ  Ðattorneys€engaged€in€the€practice€of€law€in€Knoxville,€alleging€legal€malpractice.€€According€to€Hill,Ð d´ Ðthe€Attorneys€represented€him€in€federal€court€in€connection€with€ð ðcriminal€charges€and€criminal€andÐ P  Ðcivil€forfeitures.ðð€€He€was€convicted€of€conspiracy,€conducting€an€illegal€gambling€operation,€andÐ <Œ Ðmoney€laundering,€fined€$25,000,€and€received€concurrent€sentences€of€57€months.€€Forfeiture€ofÐ (x Ðproperty€was€ordered€by€the€district€court.€€In€the€instant€case,€Hill€seeks€to€recover€damagesÐ d Ðallegedly€caused€by€the€Attorneysðð€malpractice.€€The€Attorneys€moved€for€dismissal€on€two€grounds,Ð P Ðòòi.e.óó,€(1)€the€failure€of€Hill€to€obtain€post„conviction€relief,€and€(2)€the€bar€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€Ð ì< ÐThe€trial€court€dismissed€the€complaint€without€reciting€its€basis€for€doing€so.€€Hill€appeals.€€WeÐ Ø( Ðaffirm€in€part€and€reverse€in€part.Ð Ä ÐÓßÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ œì ÐAffirmed€in€Part€and€Reversed€in€Part;€Case€Remandedó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼U»àXXUš#ÔÔ‡XXUX.¼UÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,Ð `° ÐÔ_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€and€òòD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð L œ ÐÌDavid€T.€Hill,€Manchester,€Kentucky,€Pro€Se.Ð $"t! ÐÌUrsula€Bailey,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Herbert€S.€Ô_ÔMoncierÔ_Ô€and€David€S.€Ô_ÔWiglerÔ_Ô.Ð ü#L# ÐÓm ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼U»XXXUœ #ÔÔ‡XXUX»¼UÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼U»XXXU #ÔÔ‡XXUX»¼UÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓI.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌÓ™ Óà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€a€jury€trial€in€July,€1997,€Hill€was€convicted€in€federal€district€court€ofÐ „)Ô$) Ðconspiracy€and€conducting€an€illegal€gambling€operation,€in€violation€of€18€U.S.C.A.€ðð€1955€(West,Ð p*À%* ÐÔ_ÔWESTLAWÔ_Ô€through€Ô_ÔP.L.Ô_Ô€108„35,€approved€June€23,€2003),€and€money€laundering,€in€violation€ofÐ \+¬&+ Ðâ â18€U.S.C.A.€ðð€1956(a)(1)(A)€&€(B)€(West,€Ô_ÔWESTLAWÔ_Ô€through€Ô_ÔP.L.Ô_Ô€108„35,€approved€June€23,Ð H,˜',ý ÐÔ_Ô2003)Ô#†¼U»XXXUn #ÔÔ‡XXUX»¼UÔ.€€The€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€Hillððs€convictions,€and€his€petition€for€Writ€ofÐ ° ÐCertiorari€to€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€was€denied.€€Ð œì Ðâ ââ ââ âÌà  àIn€June,€2000,€Hill€filed€a€motion€in€federal€district€court€seeking€to€vacate€or€set€aside€thatÐ tÄ Ðcourtððs€judgment€on€the€juryððs€verdict,€contending,€among€other€things,€that€he€was€ð ðdenied€effectiveÐ `° Ðassistance€of€counsel€at€trial.ðð€€The€district€court€denied€Hillððs€motion€on€February€20,€2003.€€TheÐ L œ Ðrecord€before€us€reflects€that€Hill€appealed€the€denial€to€the€Sixth€Circuit;€it€does€not€reflect€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdisposition€of€that€appeal.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àIn€separate€civil€proceedings,€the€United€States€sued€Hill€for€forfeiture€of€certain€specifiedÐ ü L  Ðreal€property€owned€by€Hill€that€was€allegedly€used€in€his€illegal€gambling€business,€under€theÐ è 8  Ðauthority€of€18€U.S.C.A.€ðð€1955(d).€€On€cross„motions€for€summary€judgment,€the€federal€districtÐ Ô$  Ðcourt€granted€the€governmentððs€motion€and€ordered€that€Hillððs€properties€be€forfeited€to€theÐ À  Ðgovernment.€€The€Sixth€Circuit€affirmed€the€district€courtððs€order€and€denied€Hillððs€petition€to€rehear.€Ð ¬ü  ÐOn€April€9,€2002,€Hill€filed€a€motion€in€the€district€court,€requesting,€òòinter€aliaóó,€relief€under€Fed.€R.Ð ˜è  ÐCiv.€P.€60(b)€with€respect€to€the€civil€forfeiture€cases.€€This€motion€was€denied€by€the€district€courtÐ „Ô  Ðone€month€later.€€On€appeal€to€the€Sixth€Circuit,€that€court€held,€in€part,€as€follows:Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àUpon€review,€we€conclude€that€the€district€court€did€not€abuse€itsÐ H˜ Ðdiscretion€when€it€denied€Hillððs€post„judgment€motion€for€relief€fromÐ 4„ Ðjudgment€under€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€60(b)(4).€€Hillððs€post„judgmentÐ  p Ðmotion€is€essentially€an€attempt€to€belatedly€assert€an€affirmativeÐ  \ Ðdefense€to€the€governmentððs€forfeiture€complaints.€€As€an€affirmativeÐ øH Ðdefense,€however,€the€statute€of€limitations€has€been€waived€due€toÐ ä4 ÐHillððs€failure€to€assert€it€during€the€prior€proceedings.€€ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌòòò òUnited€States€v.€One€Tract€of€Real€Prop.ó óóó,€60€Fed.€Ô_ÔAppxÔ_Ô.€599,€600€(6th€Cir.€2003)€(citationsÐ ¨ø Ðomitted).Ð ”ä ÐÌÓ  ÓII.Ð l¼ ÐÓ`ÓÌà  àOn€August€30,€2002,€Hill€filed€his€legal€malpractice€complaint€against€the€Attorneys.€€Of€theÐ D!” Ðfour€counts€in€the€complaint,€the€first€three€pertain€to€the€Attorneysðð€representation€of€Hill€in€theÐ 0"€  Ðcriminal€case.€€Hill€contends€(1)€that€the€Attorneys€failed€to€inform€the€district€court€that€theÐ #l! Ðgovernment€did€not€prove€the€requisite€number€of€persons€to€convict€Hill€under€18€U.S.C.A.€ðð€1955,Ð $X" Ðan€element€of€which€is€that€the€illegal€gambling€operation€must€involve€five€or€more€persons;€(2)€thatÐ ô$D # Ðwithout€a€conviction€under€ðð€1955,€the€money€laundering€conviction€would€have€been€dismissed€forÐ à%0!$ Ðfailure€to€prove€that€the€money€was€derived€from€an€unlawful€act;€and€(3)€that€the€Attorneys€failedÐ Ì&"% Ðto€inform€the€court€that€the€indictment€for€money€laundering€did€Ô_ÔnotÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€include€an€essential€element€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€crime€ð!ð€an€effect€on€interstate€commerce€ð!ð€that€would€have€necessitated€the€dismissal€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcharge.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐÔ_Ôà  àThe€fourth€count€of€Hillððs€complaint€addresses€the€civil€forfeiture€actions€filed€by€theÐ ° Ðâ âgovernment€against€him.€€In€this€count,€Hill€alleges€that€the€Attorneys€failed€to€properly€research€theÐ œì Ðissue€of€the€statute€of€limitations€as€a€bar€to€the€governmentððs€civil€forfeiture€claims;€failed€to€fileÐ ˆØ Ða€response€to€these€actions;€and€permitted€summary€judgment€to€be€entered€in€favor€of€theÐ tÄ Ðgovernment.€€Liberally€construing€this€allegation€in€Hillððs€favor€ð!ð€as€we€are€required€to€do€in€thisÐ `° Ðsummary€judgment€analysis€ð!ð€we€treat€this€charge€of€malpractice€as€including€the€claim€that€theÐ L œ ÐAttorneys€failed€to€raise€the€defense€of€the€statute€of€limitations€to€the€governmentððs€civil€suits.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àOn€October€14,€2002,€the€Attorneys€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€Hillððs€complaint€on€twoÐ  ` Ðgrounds.€€First,€the€Attorneys€asserted€that,€pursuant€to€ò òòòGibson€v.€Trantóóó ó,€58€S.W.3d€103,€116€(Tenn.Ð ü L  Ð2001),€ð ða€criminal€defendant€must€obtain€post„conviction€relief€in€order€to€maintain€a€legalÐ è 8  Ðmalpractice€claim€against€his€defense€lawyer.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€They€argue€that€because€Hill€has€not€obtainedÐ Ô$  Ðpost„conviction€relief,€his€legal€malpractice€claim€must€be€dismissed.€€Second,€the€Attorneys€contendÐ À  Ðthat€Hillððs€action€for€malpractice€was€filed€outside€of€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€found€atÐ ¬ü  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„3„104(a)(2)€(2000).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€granted€the€Attorneysðð€motion€to€dismiss€on€December€16,€2002.€€TheÐ pÀ Ðpropriety€of€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€is€now€before€us€on€this€appeal.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.Ð 4„ ÐÌÓØ&Óà  àÔ‡ XWXXXWÔThe€trial€court€decided€this€case€based€upon€the€pleadings€and€other€materials€in€the€record.€Ð  \ ÐThe€trial€court€concluded€that€the€record€before€it€justified€a€grant€of€summary€judgment€on€theÐ øH ÐAttorneysðð€motion€to€dismiss.€€Summary€judgment€is€appropriate€ð ðif€the€pleadings,€depositions,Ð ä4 Ðanswers€to€interrogatories,€and€admissions€on€file,€together€with€the€affidavits,€if€any,€show€that€thereÐ Ð  Ðis€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€aÐ ¼  Ðmatter€of€law.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.04.€€The€burden€of€proof€is€on€the€moving€party€to€show€that€itÐ ¨ø Ðhas€met€these€requirements.€€ò òòòCarvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àIn€deciding€this€case,€we€ð ðmust€view€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ l¼ Ðnonmoving€party€and€must€also€draw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmoving€partyððs€favor.ðð€Ð X ¨ Ðò òòòCarvelló óóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€26€(citing€ò òòòByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993)).€€SummaryÐ D!” Ðjudgment€should€be€granted€ð ðwhen€both€the€facts€and€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€factsÐ 0"€  Ðpermit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€only€one€conclusion.ðð€€ò òòòCarvelló óóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€26€(citationÐ #l! Ðomitted).€€Since€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€presents€a€pure€question€of€law,€our€review€is€òòdeÐ $X" Ðnovoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness€as€to€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó;€òòò òGonzales€v.€AlmanÐ ô$D # ÐConstr.€Co.ó óóó,€857€S.W.2d€42,€44„45€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€€Ô#†XWXX XW'#ÔÔ#†¼»XXW#ÔÔ‡XWX»¼ÔÐ à%0!$ ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.Ð ¸'#& ÐÓ².ÓÌà  àIn€a€legal€malpractice€case,€a€plaintiff€is€required€to€ð ðprove€that€the€attorneyððs€conduct€fellÐ )à$( Ðbelow€that€degree€of€care,€skill,€and€diligence€which€is€commonly€possessed€and€exercised€byÐ |*Ì%) Ðattorneys€practicing€in€the€same€jurisdiction€.€.€.€[and]€demonstrate€a€nexus€between€the€negligenceÐ h+¸&* Ðand€the€injury.ðð€€ò òòòSanjines€v.€Ortwein€&€Assocs.,€P.C.ó óóó,€984€S.W.2d€907,€910€(Tenn.€1998)€(citationsÐ ° Ðomitted).€€Under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„3„104(a)(2),€a€plaintiff€has€a€period€of€one€year€within€whichÐ œì Ðto€file€a€claim€for€legal€malpractice.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€discovery€rule€for€legal€malpractice€means€that€a€cause€of€action€accrues€when€(1)€theÐ `° Ðclient€suffers€an€actual€or€legally€cognizable€injury,€and€(2)€the€client€knows,€or€in€the€exercise€ofÐ L œ Ðreasonable€diligence€should€know,€that€the€injury€was€caused€by€the€attorneyððs€negligence.€€ò òòòCarvelló óóó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð900€S.W.2d€at€28„30.€€With€respect€to€the€second€requirement€of€this€rule,€it€is€not€necessary€that€theÐ $ t Ðplaintiff€ð ðactually€know€that€the€injury€constitutes€a€breach€of€the€appropriate€legal€standard€in€orderÐ  ` Ðto€discover€that€he€has€a€ððright€of€actionðð;€the€plaintiff€is€deemed€to€have€discovered€the€right€ofÐ ü L  Ðaction€if€he€is€aware€of€facts€sufficient€to€put€a€reasonable€person€on€notice€that€he€has€suffered€anÐ è 8  Ðinjury€as€a€result€of€wrongful€conduct.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€29€(quoting€ò òòòRoe€v.€Jeffersonó óóó,€875€S.W.2d€653,€657Ð Ô$  Ð(Tenn.€1994)).€€ð ðA€plaintiff€cannot€be€permitted€to€wait€until€he€knows€all€of€the€injurious€effects€orÐ À  Ðconsequences€of€an€actionable€wrong.ðð€€ò òòòCarvelló óóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€27€(quoting€ò òòòSec.€Bank€&€Trust€Co.Ð ¬ü  Ðv.€Fabricating,€Inc.ó óóó,€673€S.W.2d€860,€864„65€(Tenn.€1983)).Ð ˜è  ÐÌÓ  ÓV.Ð pÀ ÐÓú6ÓÌà  àOn€June€21,€2000,€Ô#†¼»XXW}.#ÔÔ‡XWX»¼ÔHill€filed€his€motion€in€district€court€seeking€to€vacate€or€set€aside€theÐ H˜ Ðjudgment€in€his€criminal€case€due€to€òòineffective€assistance€of€counselóó.€€Over€two€years€later,€onÐ 4„ ÐAugust€30,€2002,€Hill€filed€his€complaint€for€malpractice.€€The€Attorneys€argue€that€his€legalÐ  p Ðmalpractice€complaint€was€clearly€filed€outside€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€and€is€thereforeÐ  \ Ðbarred.€€In€response,€Hill€contends€that€he€did€not€discover€all€of€his€claims€against€the€AttorneysÐ øH Ðuntil€sometime€in€2002.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àHill€argues€that€the€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€contained€in€his€motionÐ ¼  Ðto€vacate€in€district€court€were€not€the€same€as€the€allegations€of€malpractice€contained€in€hisÐ ¨ø Ðcomplaint€filed€in€the€instant€action.€€Hillððs€motion€to€vacate€is€premised€upon€four€grounds,€onlyÐ ”ä Ðthe€first€of€which€is€relevant€to€this€case.€€In€its€memorandum€opinion€denying€Hillððs€motion,€theÐ €Ð Ðdistrict€court€interpreted€this€first€ground€as€follows:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[Hill]€claims€two€instances€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel:€(1)Ð D!” Ð[the€Attorneys]€advised€him€not€to€testify€and€thus€failed€to€present€aÐ 0"€  Ðdefense,€although€[the€Attorneys]€knew€[Hill]€wanted€to€tell€the€juryÐ #l! Ðhe€never€gambled,€never€instructed€the€machine€operators€to€makeÐ $X" Ðpayoffs,€and€never€personally€paid€off;€and€(2)€[the€Attorneys]€failedÐ ô$D # Ðto€make€an€offer€of€proof€and€thus€preserve€for€appeal€evidence,Ð à%0!$ Ðexcluded€by€the€trial€court,€that€[Hill]€believed€his€gambling€businessÐ Ì&"% Ðwas€a€lawful€enterprise.и'#&` x` x ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€alleged€malpractice€in€the€criminal€case,€we€agree€with€the€Attorneys€thatÐ )à$( Ðòòat€leastóó€by€June€21,€2000,€the€date€of€filing€of€the€motion€to€vacate,€Hill€was€ð ðaware€of€factsÐ |*Ì%) Ðsufficient€to€put€a€reasonable€person€on€notice€that€he€ha[d]€suffered€an€injury€as€a€result€of€wrongfulÐ h+¸&* Ðconduct.ðð€€ò òòòRoeó óóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€657.€€As€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held,€it€is€not€necessaryÐ ° Ðthat€Hill€know€the€full€extent€ð ðof€the€injurious€effects€or€consequences€of€an€actionable€wrong,ððÐ œì Ðò òòòCarvelló óóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€27,€€in€order€to€file€suit€against€the€Attorneys.€€Hill€did€not€file€his€complaintÐ ˆØ Ðfor€malpractice€in€the€criminal€case€within€one€year€of€June€21,€2000,€and€therefore,€his€claimÐ tÄ Ðpertaining€to€his€federal€criminal€case€is€barred€by€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations.Ð `° ÐÌà  àBecause€we€find€that€Hillððs€claim€with€respect€to€the€criminal€matter€is€barred€by€the€statuteÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€limitations,€we€do€not€find€it€necessary€to€address€Hillððs€failure€to€obtain€post„conviction€relief.€Ð $ t ÐNevertheless,€we€note€in€passing€that€the€record€before€us€does€not€reflect€that€the€post„convictionÐ  ` Ðrelief€action€has€been€finally€decided.€€òòSeeóó€ò òòòGibsonó óóó,€58€S.W.3d€at€117.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓVI.Ð À  ÐÌÓËDÓà  àIn€addition€to€alleging€malpractice€in€the€federal€criminal€case,€Hill€asserts€that€the€AttorneysÐ ˜è  Ðcommitted€malpractice€in€the€governmentððs€civil€forfeiture€actions€against€him€in€that€they€did€notÐ „Ô  Ðproperly€research€and€raise€the€alleged€failure€of€the€government€to€bring€the€aforementionedÐ pÀ Ðforfeiture€actions€within€five€years€of€its€discovery€of€Hillððs€illegal€activities,€pursuant€to€19€U.S.C.A.Ð \¬ Ððð€1621€(West,€WESTLAW€through€P.L.€108„35,€approved€June€23,€2003)Ô#†¼»XXWo7#ÔÔ‡XWX»¼Ô.€€The€Attorneys€do€notÐ H˜ Ðseem€to€contest€that€this€is€the€appropriate€statute€of€limitations.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€defenses€asserted€by€the€Attorneys€in€their€motion€to€dismiss€are€only€relevant€to€theÐ  \ Ðallegations€of€the€legal€malpractice€claim€that€pertain€to€the€òòcriminalóó€case.€€Hillððs€failure€to€obtainÐ øH Ðpost„conviction€relief€with€respect€to€the€òòcriminalóó€case€and€the€impact€on€the€issue€of€when€HillÐ ä4 Ðdiscovered€his€malpractice€claim€arising€out€of€his€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÐ Ð  Ðin€his€motion€to€vacate€his€òòcriminalóó€conviction€have€absolutely€nothing€to€do€with€the€òòcivilóó€forfeitureÐ ¼  Ðcases.€€Since€the€motion€to€dismiss€and€the€issues€raised€by€it€do€not€address€Hillððs€allegations€ofÐ ¨ø Ðmalpractice€in€the€òòcivil€óócase,€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€with€respect€to€theÐ ”ä Ðfourth€count€of€the€malpractice€complaint.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àIn€their€òòbriefóó,€the€Attorneys€attempt€to€rely€on€a€number€of€new€bases€in€the€record€toÐ X ¨ Ðestablish€that€Hillððs€claim€of€malpractice€in€the€civil€forfeiture€actions€is€barred.€€As€the€central€partÐ D!” Ðof€this€argument,€the€Attorneys€contend€that€the€record€before€us€reflects€that€the€civil€forfeitureÐ 0"€  Ðsuits׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€were€all€timely€filed.€€Hence,€so€the€argument€goes,€there€was€no€legitimate€basis€upon€whichÐ #l! Ðthe€Attorneys€could€have€asserted€a€statute€of€limitations€defense.€€This€being€the€case,€the€AttorneysÐ $X" Ðcontend€that€the€record€reflects€that€they€cannot€be€cast€in€judgment€for€malpractice€based€on€theirÐ ô$D # Ðfailure€to€interpose€a€defense€to€the€civil€forfeiture€suits€that€would€have€been€utterly€devoid€of€anyÐ à%0!$ Ðmerit.€€The€problem€with€this€defense€to€the€claim€of€malpractice€in€the€civil€forfeiture€cases€isÐ Ì&"% Ðsimply€this€ð!ð€the€record€before€us€does€not€reflect€that€it€was€ever€raised€below.€€As€previously€stated,Ð ¸'#& Ðthe€only€defenses€raised€in€the€motion€to€dismiss€ð!ð€the€motion€which€prompted€the€dismissal€ofÐ ¤(ô#' ÐHillððs€entire€claim€ð!ð€were€Hillððs€failure€to€obtain€post„conviction€relief€and€the€fact€that€HillððsÐ )à$( Ðcomplaint€was€not€timely€filed€based€upon€his€knowledge€as€indicated€by€his€motion€to€vacate€or€setÐ ° Ðaside€his€criminal€conviction.€€The€brief€raises€òònew€óómatters€ð!ð€matters€that€were€not€raised€in€the€trialÐ œì Ðcourt€according€to€the€record€before€us.€€ð ðIt€is€well„settled€that€issues€not€raised€at€trial€may€not€beÐ ˆØ Ðraised€for€the€first€time€on€appeal.ðð€€ò òòòState€Dept.€of€Human€Servs.€v.€Defrieceó óóó,€937€S.W.2d€954,€960Ð tÄ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996)€(citation€omitted).€€It€results€that€the€claim€of€legal€malpractice€in€the€civilÐ `° Ðforfeiture€cases€must€proceed.Ð L œ ÐÌÓ  ÓVII.Ð $ t ÐÌÓTÓà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part€and€reversed€in€part.€€This€case€is€remandedÐ ü L  Ðto€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings,€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxedÐ è 8  Ðequally€to€the€appellant,€David€T.€Hill,€and€the€appellees,€Herbert€S.€Moncier€and€David€S.€Wigler.€Ð Ô$  ÐÌÔ#†¼»XXWZG#ÔÔ€XWX»¼ÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________Ð pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGE