Case Name: Carl A. ELLIS, Appellant, v. C. Marshall FRIEDMAN, Individually and C. Marshall Friedman, P.C., Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-11-01
Citations: 178 S.W.3d 714
Docket Number: No. ED 86050
Parties: Carl A. ELLIS, Appellant, v. C. Marshall FRIEDMAN, Individually and C. Marshall Friedman, P.C., Respondents.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 178
Pages: 714–715

Head Matter:
Carl A. ELLIS, Appellant, v. C. Marshall FRIEDMAN, Individually and C. Marshall Friedman, P.C., Respondents.
No. ED 86050.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Nov. 1, 2005.
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 7, 2005.
Gail G. Renshaw, Charles W. Armbrus-ter, The Lakin Law Firm, P.C., Wood River, IL, for appellant.
R.C. Wuestling, M. Adina Johnson, Wuestling & James, L.C., St. Louis, MO, for respondents.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Carl A. Ellis ("Ellis"), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis granting summary judgment in favor of Respondents, C. Marshall Friedman, individually and C. Marshall Friedman, P.C. (collectively "Friedman"). Ellis had filed a petition against Friedman alleging breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice. We find that Ellis's claims are barred by res judicata because Ellis impermissibly split his causes of action. See Felling v. Giles, 47 S.W.3d 390 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).