## Facts

- Dr. Walter Gurski, a podiatrist, was a Chapter 11 debtor when a former patient, Susan Lee, sued him for podiatric malpractice.
- Gurski’s insurer initially retained Rosenblum and Filan, LLC, and attorney James Rosenblum to defend him, then disclaimed coverage and stopped funding the defense.
- The law firm informed Gurski that he lacked coverage, that he needed to obtain other counsel, and that the firm sought to withdraw; it also advised him to attend scheduled court proceedings.
- Neither Gurski nor the law firm appeared at a scheduled court hearing; the court entered a default and later rendered a $152,000 judgment against Gurski.
- After the judgment, Gurski (through new counsel) unsuccessfully sought to open the judgment.
- In bankruptcy, Gurski proposed a compromise under which he would assign to Lee a legal malpractice claim against the law firm, and Lee would seek satisfaction of her judgment from the proceeds of that malpractice action up to $152,000; the bankruptcy court approved the compromise.
- Gurski, as nominal plaintiff for Lee’s benefit, brought a legal malpractice action against the law firm; a jury found for Gurski and awarded $136,800.
- The trial court concluded that although a legal malpractice claim was not assignable, the proceeds were assignable, and it rendered judgment on the verdict; the law firm appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a client may assign a legal malpractice claim to an adversary in the underlying litigation that generated the alleged malpractice.
2. Whether a client may assign the proceeds of a legal malpractice claim to that adversary, even if the claim itself is not assignable.
3. Whether approval of such an assignment in a bankruptcy compromise alters the enforceability of the assignment under state public policy.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the judgment for Gurski.
- The court held that assignment of either (a) a legal malpractice claim or (b) the proceeds of such a claim to an adversary in the underlying litigation is unenforceable as contrary to public policy.
- The court rejected any distinction between assignment of the claim and assignment of its proceeds in this context.
- The court concluded that the bankruptcy setting and the bankruptcy court’s approval did not validate an assignment barred by state public policy.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the holding that the assignment was void.

## Legal Principles

- A legal malpractice claim is closely tied to the attorney–client relationship and implicates duties of loyalty, confidentiality, and professional judgment, making it unlike ordinary assignable commercial claims.
- Assignments of legal malpractice claims to the assigning client’s adversary in the underlying litigation are void as against public policy due to risks of collusion, distortion of incentives in the underlying case, and intrusion into confidential communications.
- Assignment of the proceeds of a legal malpractice claim to the underlying adversary is treated as functionally equivalent to assignment of the claim because it gives the adversary a direct economic stake in prosecuting the malpractice action.
- State law and state public policy govern assignability; insolvency and bankruptcy-court approval do not render enforceable an assignment that state law deems contrary to public policy.

## Conclusion

The Connecticut Supreme Court held that a client may not transfer to an adversary in the underlying litigation either a legal malpractice claim or the proceeds from that claim, because such transfers threaten attorney–client confidentiality and loyalty and create incentives for collusive or strategic manipulation of the underlying dispute; bankruptcy approval does not change the public-policy bar.


Gurski v. Rosenblum & Filan, LLC, 276 Conn. 257, 885 A.2d 163 (2005)