Lexplug logoLexplug

Gurski v. Rosenblum and Filan, LLC, et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut
885 A.2d 163 (2005)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An assignment of a legal malpractice claim, or the proceeds from such a claim, to an adversary in the same litigation that gave rise to the alleged malpractice is void as against public policy.


Facts:

  • Susan Lee sued her podiatrist, Walter Gurski, for medical malpractice related to treatment she received in 1995 and 1996.
  • Gurski's insurance carrier retained the Rosenblum law firm to defend him but later denied coverage, leading the law firm to seek withdrawal.
  • Neither Gurski nor the Rosenblum law firm appeared at a scheduled settlement hearing, resulting in a default judgment being entered against Gurski.
  • A final judgment of $152,000 was ultimately entered in favor of Lee against Gurski.
  • Gurski, who had previously filed for bankruptcy, lacked the funds to pay the judgment.
  • To resolve the matter, Gurski entered into a compromise agreement with Lee, which was approved by the Bankruptcy Court.
  • Under the agreement, Gurski assigned to Lee his right to any recovery from a potential legal malpractice lawsuit against the Rosenblum law firm, up to the amount of her judgment.
  • In exchange for this assignment, Lee agreed that her claim against Gurski would be limited solely to what she could recover from the malpractice lawsuit.

Procedural Posture:

  • Susan Lee sued Walter Gurski for medical malpractice in a Connecticut trial court.
  • A default judgment was entered against Gurski, followed by a final judgment for $152,000 after a hearing in damages.
  • The trial court denied Gurski's motion to open the judgment.
  • The U.S. Bankruptcy Court approved a compromise allowing Gurski to assign his potential malpractice claim against the Rosenblum law firm to Lee.
  • Gurski then sued the Rosenblum law firm for legal malpractice in the Connecticut trial court.
  • A jury returned a verdict in favor of Gurski.
  • The trial court denied the law firm's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which had argued the assignment was void.
  • The law firm appealed the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Court, and the Supreme Court of Connecticut transferred the appeal to itself for decision.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does public policy prohibit a client from assigning a legal malpractice claim, or its proceeds, to the client's adversary from the underlying litigation?


Opinions:

Majority - Katz, J.

Yes. The assignment of a legal malpractice claim or its proceeds to an adversary in the underlying litigation that gave rise to the claim is against public policy and therefore unenforceable. The court reasoned that allowing such assignments creates a 'disreputable role reversal.' To succeed in the malpractice claim, the original plaintiff (Lee), as the assignee, would be financially invested in proving a position diametrically opposed to the one she successfully argued in the original medical malpractice case—namely, that the defendant (Gurski) was not negligent. The court found that this 'abrupt and shameless shift of positions' erodes public confidence in the legal system, fosters collusion, and gives the appearance that litigation is a mere game rather than a search for truth. The court rejected the distinction between assigning the claim itself and assigning its proceeds, deeming it a 'meaningless distinction' used to circumvent the underlying public policy concerns.



Analysis:

This decision establishes a clear, bright-line rule in Connecticut prohibiting the assignment of legal malpractice claims to the adversary in the underlying suit. While declining to adopt a per se ban on all assignments of legal malpractice claims, the court created a strong, specific prohibition that prioritizes the integrity of the judicial process over the free assignability of claims. This precedent prevents defendants from using potential malpractice claims as a form of currency to settle with plaintiffs, thereby protecting attorneys from collusive settlements designed to shift liability to them. The ruling reinforces the idea that the legal system cannot tolerate arrangements that require parties to argue fundamentally contradictory positions in successive lawsuits.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Gurski v. Rosenblum and Filan, LLC, et al. (2005)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"