[brief] The trial court properly held that Plaintiffs’ Legal Malpractice Allegations were barred by the Law of the Case Doctrine  (148a)**  With regard to plaintiffs’ claims for legal malpractice against the [...] defendants, the trial court properly held:  To the extent that these Counts are based on the same factual predicates underlying the legal malpractice claims asserted in the 2015 case, they are clearly barred by the Law of the Case Doctrine, as the legal malpractice claims asserted in that case were dismissed with prejudice by the Court, and that decision was re-affirmed multiple times.  (148a).  “Under the law of the case doctrine, decisions of law made in a case should be respected by all other lower or equal courts during the pendency of that case. ”  *Lanzet v. Greenberg*, 126 N.J. 168, 192 (1991).  The law of the case is “restricted to preventing re-litigation of the same issue in the same suit. ”  *Slowinski v. Valley* Nat’l Bank, 264 N.J. Super. 172, 180-181 (App. Div. 1993).  “The law-of-the-case doctrine is a guide for judicial economy based on the sound policy that when an issue is once litigated and decided during the course of a case, that decision should be the end of the matter. ”  Feldman v. Lederle Labs., a Div. of Am. Cyanamid Co., 125 N.J. 117, 132 (1991).  “The doctrine is premised upon the desirability of avoiding the re-litigation of an issue that has already been litigated and decided. ”  State v. Downey, 237 N.J. Super. 4, 14 (App. Div. 1989).  In this case, plaintiff’s 2020 Complaint was nothing more than an attempt to re-litigate the issue of the dismissal of [...] and [...], which had been already been litigated and decided in the 2015 case.  “It has been generally stated that the law of the case doctrine applies to the principle that where there is an unreversed decision of a question of law or fact made during the course of litigation, such decision settles that question for all subsequent stages of the suit. ”  State v. Hale, 127 N.J. Super. 407, 410 (App. Div. 1974).  Despite numerous attempts by plaintiffs in the 2015 suit and the 2020 case, [...]’s January 19, 2016 decision dismissing [...] and [...] with prejudice has never been reversed.  Plaintiffs’ 2020 Amended Complaint and the allegations presented against Menas and [...] were clearly in violation of the Law of the Case Doctrine and the trial court correctly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims based on this doctrine and based on the clear history of bad faith conduct by Plaintiffs.  The history in this case is clear:  In the 2015 case, [...] dismissed the claims against [...] and [...], with prejudice, over four years before the filing of the 2020 Complaint.  [...]’s Order dismissing [...] and [...] from the 2015 case was the law of the 2020 case and could not be changed simply by filing a new complaint, over four years later under a different docket number.  Plaintiffs’ tactic of filing the 2020 case was nothing more than their latest attempt to circumvent the 2015 Court’s dismissal of the claims against [...] and [...] and was properly found to be sanctionable conduct.  Therefore, pursuant to the Law of the Case Doctrine, the trial court’s August 28, 2020 Order dismissing Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, with prejudice, should be affirmed.