In Barber v. Siller Wilk we seen an interesting anomaly of legal malpractice, which is the recurring lawsuit against the target attorney, which is lost, and then against the attorney who sued the target attorney, then…. reminiscent of the reducio ad adsurdum metaphysical argument one learns in philosophy.  In this case, plaintiff successfully sued for a PhenFen injury, in New York, through a New York class action firm, and was unhappy with the result.  Winning $200,000 as a class action member, plaintiff believed that he was due more, as an individual. 

California has a one year statute of limitations, and when plaintiff sued defendant, was shut out on a borrowing statute issue.  The argument was over when the statute of limitations started to run, and whether continuous representation kicked in.  Plaintiff lost, and then sued the legal malpractice attorneys, only to lose on collateral estoppel.  Judge James found that defendants proved all that needed to be proved:  identity of issue and a full and fair opportunity to be heard.

Result: plaintiff loses.