547 S.W.3d 585
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiffs Cristian Juan and Anthony Adewunmi, real-estate agents, faced MREC disciplinary proceedings (2008) and, on counsel Gary Growe's advice, entered a January 11, 2010 settlement revoking their licenses and including a joint stipulation of facts about seven transactions.
- Five months later the U.S. indicted Plaintiffs on seven federal counts (mail/wire fraud conspiracy, mail fraud counts, and a HUD false-statement count); only one transaction overlapped with the MREC stipulation.
- Plaintiffs pled guilty (January 2011) to the single HUD false-statement count (count VII) in exchange for dismissal of the other counts; plea colloquies established they admitted the factual basis and entered pleas knowingly and voluntarily.
- After serving sentences, Plaintiffs sued Growe for legal malpractice, alleging his advice to sign the MREC stipulation caused the federal prosecution; Growe (and his firm) counterclaimed against Adewunmi for unpaid fees.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Growe on malpractice (finding Plaintiffs collaterally estopped from relitigating guilt) and for the firm on breach-of-contract; Plaintiffs appealed; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs may pursue legal malpractice claims based on counsel’s advice to stipulate to facts in MREC settlement | Growe’s advice led to a stipulation later used in the federal case; but-for that advice the indictments and conviction would not have occurred | Plaintiffs’ convictions (and guilty pleas) preclude malpractice recovery because their own criminal acts, not counsel’s advice, proximately caused damages; collateral estoppel/exoneration rule applies | Plaintiffs are collaterally estopped from relitigating guilt; malpractice claims barred and summary judgment for Defendant affirmed |
| Whether collateral estoppel applies given guilty pleas and failed coram nobis | Plaintiffs: have not conceded guilt for malpractice purposes; their convictions do not preclude malpractice claims | Defendant: guilty pleas and denial of coram nobis establish the facts and preclude relitigation — public policy disfavors allowing plaintiffs to profit from their crimes | Collateral estoppel applies; plea admissions and failed coram nobis bar malpractice claims |
| Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment on malpractice causation/proximate cause | Plaintiffs: proximate cause exists because the stipulation prompted indictment and plea; factual issues remain | Defendant: causation cannot be proved without showing actual innocence; plaintiffs’ convictions supply the proximate cause (their illegal acts) | No genuine issue: Plaintiffs cannot show but-for success in underlying criminal case absent exoneration; summary judgment proper |
| Whether prejudgment interest on the firm’s breach-of-contract award should run from 2010 | Adewunmi: demand was not ascertainable until affidavit filed with summary-judgment motion | Firm: invoices and billing demands (admitted by Adewunmi) made the amount and time ascertainable earlier | Prejudgment interest award affirmed; Adewunmi failed to preserve the argument and invoices/demands made amount ascertainable |
Key Cases Cited
- Foster v. St. Louis County, 239 S.W.3d 599 (Mo. banc 2007) (summary judgment standard)
- Nail v. Husch Blackwell Sanders, LLP, 436 S.W.3d 556 (Mo. banc 2014) (elements of legal malpractice; case-within-a-case causation)
- Rosenberg v. Shostak, 405 S.W.3d 8 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (exoneration rule: guilty plea and failed post-conviction relief collaterally estop malpractice claim)
- Goodman v. Wampler, 407 S.W.3d 96 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (criminal defendant cannot recover for incarceration-related damages absent exoneration)
- Kuehne v. Hogan, 321 S.W.3d 337 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (actual innocence requirement for malpractice claims against post-conviction counsel)
- Costa v. Allen, 323 S.W.3d 383 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (conviction stands as presumptive proof of guilt and bars collateral malpractice claims)
- State ex rel. O'Blennis v. Adolf, 691 S.W.2d 498 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985) (early statement of the rule that a convicted criminal must show actual innocence to recover in malpractice against trial counsel)