## Facts

- Milton R. Felger hired attorney Zane G. Nichols to represent him in a divorce matter.
- A fee dispute arose, and Felger refused to pay $345 that Nichols claimed was owed for the divorce representation.
- Nichols sued Felger in the District Court of Maryland to recover the $345 in unpaid fees.
- At the fee-trial, Felger defended by arguing that Nichols’s services were unsatisfactory and therefore the fee was unreasonable.
- The District Court entered judgment for Nichols on the fee claim.
- Felger noted an appeal to the circuit court but later voluntarily dismissed the appeal, leaving the District Court fee judgment final.
- Separately, Felger filed a circuit court action against Nichols for legal malpractice arising out of the same divorce representation, alleging Nichols had given “false and untrue” legal advice.
- Nichols moved for summary judgment in the malpractice case, arguing that the earlier fee judgment resolved the same factual dispute about the adequacy of his services and therefore precluded relitigation.
- Felger opposed summary judgment, contending he lacked a fair opportunity to litigate malpractice-related matters in the fee case because of the District Court’s limited jurisdiction and an alleged trial error (a sustained objection).
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Nichols, and Felger appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the final judgment for the attorney in the District Court fee action collaterally estopped the client from bringing a later malpractice action that turned on the same issue of the adequacy of the attorney’s services.
2. Whether the District Court’s limited jurisdiction or an alleged evidentiary ruling prevented application of collateral estoppel.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment for Nichols.
- The court held that collateral estoppel applied because the adequacy of Nichols’s legal services had been raised, litigated, and resolved against Felger in the earlier fee action.
- The court rejected Felger’s attempt to avoid preclusion based on the District Court’s limited jurisdiction and the claimed evidentiary error, noting that Felger could have pursued his appeal from the fee judgment rather than dismissing it.

## Legal Principles

- Maryland treats “res judicata” (estoppel by judgment) as including two related doctrines: claim preclusion (direct estoppel) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel).
- Claim preclusion bars a later suit between the same parties on the same claim, covering matters actually litigated and matters that could have been litigated.
- Issue preclusion bars relitigation of an issue of fact or law that was actually litigated, determined by a valid final judgment, and essential to that judgment, even when the later suit involves a different claim.
- A final judgment in an attorney-fee dispute can have issue-preclusive effect on the question of the adequacy of the attorney’s services when the client placed that issue in dispute as a defense to the fee claim.
- A party who believes the first tribunal made trial-level errors must ordinarily seek correction through available review procedures; allowing the first judgment to become final supports applying preclusion in later litigation between the same parties.

## Conclusion

Because Felger litigated the adequacy of Nichols’s divorce representation as a defense in the fee action and then allowed the resulting judgment for Nichols to become final, Felger was barred by collateral estoppel from relitigating that same adequacy issue in a later malpractice suit arising from the same representation, so summary judgment for Nichols was properly affirmed.


Felger v. Nichols, 370 A.2d 141 (1977)