Underlining why one does not litigate where one does not know the rules, here is an otherwise meritorious legal malpractice case which is now dismissed with prejudice for breaking the Washington state "two dismissal "rule.  Hinshaw explains:

"In March 2004, Feature filed a new complaint in Seattle against Mr. Neal and Preston Gates, but not Butler. Following a successful motion to change venue to Spokane, Washington, the defendants moved for summary judgment based on the so-called “two dismissal” rule found in Washington CR 41(a)(4), which provides “[u]nless otherwise stated in the order of dismissal, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that an order of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when obtained by a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action based on or including the same claim in any court of the United States or of any state.” Id. at *2. The lower court granted the summary judgment motion. Feature appealed and the case was transferred to the Supreme Court of Washington for direct review. Id. at *2.

The court noted that the purpose of the “two dismissal” rule was to prevent the abuse and harassment of defendants and the unfair use of dismissals. The court noted that the language of CR 41(a)(4) did not allow for court discretion and operated as a nondiscretionary adjudication on the merits when the dismissals are unilaterally obtained. The court also asserted that the rule should be strictly construed and that if a defendant stipulated to the dismissal or the dismissal was by court order, then it was not unilateral and the rule did not apply. On the other hand, the court would not look to the parties’ intent if the requirements of the rule were met. See also Spokane County v. Specialty Auto & Truck Painting, Inc., 103 P.3d 792 (2004); Burnett v. Spokane Ambulance, 933 P.2d 1036 (1997). "