407 S.W.3d 96
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Goodman filed a legal malpractice action against her criminal defense attorney and his law firm.
- Goodman pleaded guilty to first‑degree assault and kidnapping, receiving concurrent 10‑year sentences.
- She completed shock incarceration and was later released on habeas corpus relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of failure to state a claim, collateral estoppel, and statute of limitations.
- The trial court dismissed with prejudice; the court of appeals affirmed, holding lack of actual innocence and collateral estoppel bar the claim.
- The decision principally rests on whether actual innocence is required and whether collateral estoppel applies due to unaltered convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is actual innocence an essential element of a legal malpractice claim by a convicted criminal? | Goodman contends innocence not essential. | Kuehne and others require actual innocence. | No; actual innocence is essential. |
| Is Goodman barred by collateral estoppel from pursuing the claim? | Convictions not set aside; should proceed. | Convictions not set aside foreclose the claim. | Yes; barred. |
| Do any cited cases support Goodman or Jepson to avoid the rule? | Jepson undermines necessity of innocence. | Jepson dicta insufficient; rules apply here. | Jepson does not invalidate the rule; the rule applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Blennis v. Adolf, 691 S.W.2d 498 (Mo.App.1985) (collateral estoppel when innocence not proven; public policy against profiting from crime)
- Poole v. State, 671 S.W.2d 787 (Mo.App.1983) (ineffective assistance; collateral estoppel considerations)
- Johnson v. Raban, 702 S.W.2d 134 (Mo.App.1985) (collateral estoppel bar in legal malpractice against convicted defendant)
- Johnson v. Schmidt, 719 S.W.2d 825 (Mo.App.1986) (damages require showing impact on acquittal; collateral issues )
- Ahern v. Turner, 758 S.W.2d 108 (Mo.App.1988) (collateral estoppel applied; post‑conviction relief avenues exist)
- Kuehne v. Hogan, 321 S.W.3d 337 (Mo.App.2010) (actual innocence essential; public policy against recovering for crime)
- Costa v. Allen, 323 S.W.3d 383 (Mo.App.2010) (public policy bars collateral attack on valid conviction; innocence essential)
- Rosenberg v. Shostak, 405 S.W.3d 8 (Mo.App.E.D.2013) (innocence essential; damages arise from client’s own acts; collateral estoppel applies)
- Jepson v. Stubbs, 555 S.W.2d 307 (Mo. banc 1977) (recited rule; accrual timing; dicta on collateral estoppel not controlling here)