While a continuing attorney-client relationship may suspend the running of prescription, we hold the relationship between Mrs. Smith and defendant attorneys was terminated more than one year prior to her filing of this malpractice action. For examples of the continuous representation rule as applied in Louisiana, See Blanchard v. Reeves, 469 So.2d 1165 (La.App. 5th Cir.), writ denied, 476 So.2d 347 (La. 1985) and Olivier v. National Union Fire Insurance Co, 499 So.2d 1330 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1986). Mrs. Smith argues that the doctrine of continuing representation operates to suspend the running of prescription until the withdrawing attorney has complied with the technical rules applicable to the withdrawal of representation by an attorney.

Moreover, according to Ms. Noe, Dr. Hill placed her on a one-year exercise program to strengthen her buttock muscles and encouraged her on several occasions to continue with the program when she questioned his diagnosis. In Blanchard v. Reeves, 469 So.2d 1165 (La.App. 5 Cir.), writ denied, 476 So.2d 347 (La. 1985), a case that applied the analogous continuous representation doctrine in a legal malpractice case, the court noted that either the defendant attorney did not know that continuing to represent the plaintiff after the cause had prescribed was a conflict of interest, or the defendant attorney had failed to disclose a conflict of interest that he knew existed. 469 So.2d at 1168.

Before Braud and Lima, contra non valentem was applied to suspend prescription in cases of attorney malpractice. See Edward J. Milligan, Jr., Ltd. v. LaCaze, 509 So.2d 726 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 512 So.2d 420 (La. 1987); Olivier v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 499 So.2d 1330 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1986); Blanchard v. Reeves, 469 So.2d 1165 (La.App. 5th Cir.), writ denied, 476 So.2d 347 (La. 1985). In Blanchard, Blanchard's suit was dismissed by the trial court on grounds the suit had prescribed, but the appellate court reversed.Blanchard, 469 So.2d at 1167.

In brief, the Oliviers assert that, "[i]t would have been incongruous of them to file suit (in order to interrupt prescription) against the very attorneys upon whose work they were now attempting to rely for a successful conclusion to their adoption petition". In the factually similar case of Blanchard v. Reeves, 469 So.2d 1165 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1985), writ denied, 476 So.2d 347 (La. 1985), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal was presented with this very issue. In Blanchard, plaintiff brought a legal malpractice suit against his former attorney who was unsuccessful in litigating his medical malpractice claim.

Here, however, the RTC has specifically avoided alleging that any defendant acted in bad faith or with fraudulent intent. On the other hand, there are cases such as Blanchard v. Reeves, 469 So.2d 1165 (La.App. 5th Cir.), writ denied, 476 So.2d 347 (La. 1985), and progeny. In each of these cases, a plaintiff was suing his former attorney for the attorney's negligent handling of an earlier case that the attorney had unsuccessfully brought on the plaintiff's behalf; in none were there any allegations of intentional wrongdoing by the attorney.

This suspension principle is based on the third application of contra non valentem, which suspends prescription when the debtor has done some act effectually to prevent the creditor from availing himself of his cause of action. Blanchard v. Reeves, 469 So.2d 1165, 1168 (La.App. 5th Cir.), writ denied, 476 So.2d 347 (La. 1985). This suspension principle, labeled the "continuous representation rule," has been recognized by a host of Louisiana appellate decisions and has been widely recognized in other jurisdictions.

This suspension principle is based on the third application of contra non valentem, which suspends prescription when the debtor has done some act effectually to prevent the creditor from availing himself of his cause of action. Blanchard v. Reeves, 469 So.2d 1165, 1168 (La.App. 5th Cir.), writ denied, 476 So.2d 347 (La. 1985). This suspension principle, labeled the "continuous representation rule," has been recognized by a host of Louisiana appellate decisions and has been widely recognized in other jurisdictions.

It is well settled that in matters involving legal malpractice, prescription is suspended under the civilian doctrine of contra non valentum until termination of the attorney-client relationship. Olivier v. National Fire Insurance Company, 499 So.2d 1330 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1986); Milligan v. LaCaze, 509 So.2d 726, 509 So.2d 729 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1987), writ denied, 512 So.2d 440 (La. 1987); Blanchard v. Reeves, 469 So.2d 1165 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1985), writ denied, 476 So.2d 347 (La. 1985); Braud v. New England Insurance Company, 576 So.2d 466 (La. 1991). There appears to be no justifiable reason why this principle should not be equally applicable in cases involving medical malpractice where the physician-patient relationship continues despite the fact that the patient, during the course of treatment, receives opinions from other physicians that the treatment being administered by the treating physician is inappropriate.

Further, when the plaintiff's claim is prescribed on its face, the plaintiff has the burden of proof to rebut the exception of prescription. Blanchard v. Reeves, 469 So.2d 1165 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1985). [Emphasis added].

In recognizing the continuous representation rule, the supreme court stated, "This suspension principle is based on the third application of contra non valentem, which suspends prescription when the debtor has done some act effectually to prevent the creditor from availing himself of his cause of action." Lima, 595 So.2d at 630. (citing Blanchard v. Reeves, 469 So.2d 1165, 1168 (La.App. 5 Cir.), writ denied, 476 So.2d 347 (La. 1985). Under this rule, prescription is suspended "during the attorney's continuous representation of the client regarding the specific subject matter in which the alleged wrongful act or omission occurred."