Speeney v. Powers, et al., United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, March 11, 2010
Facts: Appellants were alleged victims of harassment by a university professor. The university retained a law firm to represent it in connection with the professor’s de-tenure hearing and to defend the university in a lawsuit instituted by the professor. Appellants believed they had an attorney-client relationship with the law firm. Eventually, the university settled with the professor, but appellants were not consulted during the settlement negotiations.
Appellants thereafter filed suit against the law firm, the professor, and the university. As against the law firm, appellants alleged that the firm violated the attorney-client relationship and breached its fiduciary duty and ethical obligations. Appellants also moved to disqualify the law firm as counsel to the university based on a conflict of interest between appellants and the firm.
The court held an evidentiary hearing to make a determination on the motion to disqualify. The Court found that there was no attorney-client relationship between appellants and the law firm. The firm then moved for summary judgment with respect to appellants’ malpractice claims based on the "law of the case" doctrine.
Issue: Can a factual determination made to determine one issue in a case also decide another claim in the same matter that has not otherwise been fully litigated?
Ruling: No. The "law of the case" doctrine limits relitigation of an issue once it has been decided in an earlier stage of the same litigation in order to promote finality, consistency, and judicial economy. The doctrine, however, is discretionary rather than a restriction on the Court’s power. It only precludes relitigation of issues that the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate.
Here, the Court had made it clear that the evidentiary hearing was not a trial of the merits of appellants’ claims and was limited to the issue of disqualification. Moreover, appellants’ lawyer had stated that if he had been trying to prove his malpractice case, he would have pursued more discovery.
Appellants further argued that there is an exception to the "law of the case" doctrine when new evidence is presented. The Court agreed:
Reconsideration of a previously decided issue may, however, be appropriate in certain circumstances, including when the record contains new evidence…This exception to the law of the case doctrine makes sense because when the record contains new evidence, the question has not really been decided earlier and is posed for the first time…But this is only if the new evidence differs materially from the evidence of record when the issue was first decided and if it provides less support for that decision.
Lesson: A factual determination during one phase of a matter will not necessarily be determinative of a professional negligence claim where the claim has not otherwise been fully litigated, or new evidence has since been uncovered to support the claim.