proceedings claiming that their former lawyer, defendant Moore herein, coerced and misled them. Plaintiffs’ primary grievance was the provision of the settlement requiring confidentiality and the dismantling of their website in which they condemn the treatment their son received by Columbia. In this regard, despite the express language of the agreement entered and their acknowledgement of their understanding of it on the record, plaintiffs contended below that they did not understand that they would be required to dismantle their website because of defendant Moore’s fraud and duress. The Court below, nevertheless, concluded that the plaintiffs’ decision to settle was their own and not the product of duress, fraud or coercion of their former counsel. This decision was affirmed on appeal. After having two complete bites at the apple, they again raise the issue of defendant’s alleged fraud, duress or coercion as a predicate for the instant legal malpractice action. The plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues relevant hereto in the prior proceedings and the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the instant attempt to have yet a third bite at the apple.

3. Plaintiffs also sought in the underlying action to vacate defendant Moore’s attorney’s fee lien on the subject settlement, which motion was also denied. This prior adjudication acknowledging Moore’s lien and entitlement to his fee is also a bar to the instant claims of malpractice.

4. The doctrines of waiver and estoppel also foreclose the instant complaint to the extent plaintiffs base their claim upon the loss of rights that plaintiffs knowingly and voluntarily relinquished, both in open court and in the plain language of the General Release that they acknowledged they read, understood and signed.
Click for Previous Page
Click for Next Page (3/16)
Click for Legal Malpractice Lawsuit