Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-law firm’s motion for summary judgment on judicial estoppel grounds in plaintiff-Trustee’s claim filed on behalf of bankrupt debtor alleging that defendant committed legal malpractice by failing to advise debtor on consequences of not settling underlying lawsuit by creditor that resulted in $17 million default judgment and by failing to defend debtor in underlying lawsuit. Judicial estoppel doctrine served to protect integrity of courts from appearance of manipulative litigation conduct, and record showed that said creditor convinced Trustee to bring instant malpractice claim as means to fund creditor’s $17 million default judgment. As such, Dist. Ct. could properly conclude that it would be inconsistent for Trustee to prevail in instant malpractice claim for benefit of creditor, where malpractice action was premised on theory that creditor should never have obtained underlying default judgment.