Professional Negligence Law Reporter

A Minnesota appellate court held that a family law client’s legal malpractice lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Attorney Lee Johnson was retained to represent Christopher Baylor during an order for protection (OFP) proceeding brought by Baylor’s wife. Concluding that Baylor had abused his wife and child, the court issued an OFP and granted sole custody of the child to the wife. Baylor then brought an action in federal court against Johnson, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The magistrate judge issued a report, concluding that Baylor had not alleged any acts constituting negligence or suggesting causation of damages, and recommended dismissal. A federal district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the claim with prejudice.

Baylor then sued Johnson, his partner, and their law firm in state court, alleging professional negligence, breach of an attorney-client retainer agreement, breach of duty, and conversion. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The trial court dismissed the case, citing res judicata.

Affirming, the appellate court found that res judicata requires a party to have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate a matter. Such a determination is an objective test, the court said, adding that the issue focuses generally on whether there were significant procedural limitations in the prior proceeding, whether the party had an incentive to fully litigate the issue, or whether effective litigation was limited by the parties’ relationship or nature. Citing case law, the court noted that a litigant’s disagreement with a legal ruling does not mean that the court denied the litigant a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.

Applying these principles, the court noted that the plaintiff had chosen to bring his federal action, assert his claims and arguments, and proceed without an attorney. That the district court failed to recognize his argument does not mean that he lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims, the court said. Moreover, the court found, the plaintiff did not allege that his malpractice action arose out of any new facts outside of the defendants’ representation of him in the OFP matter. Thus, the court held that dismissal of the plaintiff’s state law claims had been proper.

Citation: Baylor v. Johnson & Greenberg, 2021 WL 1245270 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2021).