Rosenberg v. Shostak, 405 S.W.3d 8

Dr. Mark R. Rosenberg appeals a summary judgment in a Missouri legal malpractice action against Burton H. Shostak and Moline & Mehan, LLC.
Plaintiff pled that but-for Defendants’ negligent advice regarding a federal plea, he would have gone to trial and avoided licensing consequences.
Defendants invoked collateral estoppel/exoneration, arguing plaintiff’s criminal conviction precludes proving proximate cause.
Trial court granted summary judgment on statutes of limitations, collateral estoppel, and judicial estoppel grounds.
Plaintiff’s conviction involved two misdemeanor counts for receiving and retaining stolen property; disciplinary boards imposed licensing actions and ABPN revoked certification.
Court affirmed the trial court’s decision on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Collateral estoppel bars malpractice claim	Rosenberg argues conviction not necessary to sue	Exoneration rule precludes proving proximate cause	Affirmed; exoneration applies; guilt bars proximate cause.
Damages linked to defendants’ advice are proximate	But-for theory shows causal link to damages	Boards’ independent discretion breaks causal chain	Denied; damages too remote given board discretion.

O’Blennis v. Adolf, 691 S.W.2d 498 (Mo.App. E.D.1985) (exoneration rule applies when conviction forecloses proximate cause in malpractice)
Costa v. Allen, 323 S.W.3d 383 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (innocence required to establish causation; exoneration rule)
Jepson v. Stubbs, 555 S.W.2d 307 (Mo. banc 1977) (discussed but not controlling; post-conviction relief required)
Brown v. Carnahan, 370 S.W.3d 637 (Mo. banc 2012) (collateral estoppel applied defensively/appropriately)
State ex rel. Johns v. Kays, 181 S.W.3d 565 (Mo. banc 2006) (four-factor test for collateral estoppel)