In Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal. 4th 275, the plaintiff met with one attorney concerning a transactional matter previously handled for him by another attorney. They met for an hour and the plaintiff left relevant documents with the new attorney. A week later, the new attorney returned the documents and informed the plaintiff that she could not represent him in an action against his former attorney because she had learned her firm had a conflict in that it represented his former attorney's firm in another matter. The new attorney did not inform the plaintiff of the statute of limitations for pursuing his former attorney. In a suit against the new attorney for legal malpractice for having failed to provide such information, the California Supreme Court held the new attorney had no duty to do so. It stated: "In our view, assuming that the circumstances of the . . . meeting were sufficient to make the plaintiff a client of the new attorney, her duty of loyalty to the plaintiff's former attorney, the firm's existing client, required her both to sever any professional relation with the plaintiff promptly upon learning of the conflict and, as a legal complement to that obligation, absolved her of a duty to provide any advice to the plaintiff adverse to the interests of his former attorney, including advice respecting the statute of limitations governing, and the advisability of engaging alternative counsel to pursue, the contemplated lawsuit against the former attorney . . . ." ( Id. at p. 281.)