Fredericks v. Vogel Law Firm, 946 N.W.2d 507

In a prior (2016) action, Northern Improvement and McCormick sued Terrance Fredericks; after a 2018 trial a jury found Fredericks breached fiduciary duties and awarded damages to Native Energy and McCormick, while finding McCormick and Northern Improvement did not breach duties to Fredericks or Native Energy.
Vogel Law Firm (Vogel) represented McCormick/Northern Improvement in the earlier action; Fredericks sought to disqualify Vogel, arguing Vogel previously reviewed agreements for Native Energy (2010–2011); the trial court ultimately ruled Vogel represented McCormick, not Native Energy, and this Court affirmed that decision.
Fredericks moved to join Vogel as a third-party defendant and to amend counterclaims in the first action; the court allowed some amendments but later struck Fredericks’ untimely third amended pleading and denied joinder of Vogel.
Fredericks then filed a separate 2019 suit against Vogel, McCormick, and Northern Improvement alleging conflict of interest, legal malpractice (improper disclosure of confidential information), and breaches of fiduciary duties.
The district court dismissed the new suit on res judicata grounds, finding the claims were identical or could have been raised in the earlier action and that Vogel was in privity with McCormick/Northern Improvement; the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars Fredericks’ claims against McCormick and Northern Improvement	Fredericks contends these are new or distinct claims and thus not precluded	Defendants contend those claims were or could have been raised in the earlier action; Fredericks’ amended pleading was untimely	Held: Claims are barred — they arise from the same facts and could/should have been raised in the earlier action
Whether res judicata bars Fredericks’ claims against Vogel (attorney)	Fredericks argues Vogel’s malpractice/conflict claims are separate and were not adjudicated earlier	Defendants argue Vogel is in privity with McCormick/Northern Improvement and claims involve the same facts, so they were or could have been raised earlier	Held: Claims are barred — attorney privity applies and cause-of-action splitting is prohibited

Kulczyk v. Tioga Ready Mix Co., 902 N.W.2d 485 (defines res judicata/claim preclusion and that claims that could have been raised are barred)
Littlefield v. Union State Bank, 500 N.W.2d 881 (explains that identical factual situations must be raised in the earlier action)
Perdue v. Knudson, 179 N.W.2d 416 (articulates that a judgment bars subsequent actions on matters essentially connected to the subject which might have been litigated)
Fettig v. (opinion), 934 N.W.2d 547 (applies Perdue’s broad bar to related matters in later actions)
Simpson v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 693 N.W.2d 612 (recognizes attorneys can be in privity with clients for res judicata purposes)
Lucas v. Porter, 755 N.W.2d 88 (explains prohibition on splitting a single cause of action into multiple suits)