Writ application denied.

Weimer, J., would grant and docket.

Crichton, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons.

Crichton, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons:

I would grant and docket this writ application to provide further guidance on the appropriate venue under C.C.P. art. 74 where a legal malpractice petition includes both failure-to-file and negligent drafting claims. See R.S. 9:5605 (a legal malpractice suit shall not be brought "unless filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and proper venue within one year from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect, or within one year from the date that the alleged act, omission, or neglect is discovered or should have been discovered") (emphasis added); see also Chambers v. LeBlanc , 598 So. 2d 337, 337-338 (La. 1992) (holding venue is "proper" for purposes of R.S. 9:5605 for a malpractice claim based on an attorney's failure to make a timely filing in either the parish where the attorney practices or the parish where the suit should have been filed). Without clarity, the law arguably creates a dilemma whereby injured clients may or may not obtain relief because their attorneys cannot correctly determine the proper venue in which the malpractice suit should be brought in accordance with R.S. 9:5605, thereby potentially creating additional malpractice claims. Accordingly, I would grant and docket this matter to clarify the proper venue for the types of legal malpractice claims set forth herein.