Court Declined To Create A New Exception To The Collateral Estoppel Rule.

Years ago, the juvenile court terminated plaintiff’s parental rights to her daughter and the Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting plaintiff’s contention of ineffective assistance of counsel by her appointed juvenile dependency lawyers. Thereafter, plaintiff filed the current action for legal malpractice against the same lawyers. The trial court granted the lawyers’ motion for summary judgment. On appeal, plaintiff contended the lawyers put in place a juvenile case plan that was doomed to fail, and further failed to file and refused to pursue a writ of habeas corpus after her parental rights were terminated. She also contended she was restricted in the type of evidence she could present in her ineffective assistance claim and never had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the causation issue in the juvenile case. The Court of Appeal found the causation issue raised in the underlying juvenile appeal was whether the alleged deficiencies in counsel’s performance caused the termination of parental rights, which “is the same issue that [plaintiff] seeks to litigate here.” (Kemper v. County of San Diego (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 1; December 4, 2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1075.)