Opinion ID: 782846
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Malpractice Action

Text: 7 After losing his appeal from denial of habeas relief, Purdy brought this malpractice action against Zeldes and his firm in the District Court of Vermont. 3 In his complaint, Purdy alleged essentially the same deficiencies in defendants' representation of him in the criminal case. 4 Purdy argued that Zeldes was negligent (1) by failing to discover and disclose that 29 other persons charged with the same offense as Purdy avoided any prison sentence by pleading guilty; (2) by failing to disclose Califano's statements; and (3) by failing to advise Purdy post-sentencing that he could still cooperate and receive a reduction in his sentence. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Purdy had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the first two issues before the habeas court and was therefore collaterally estopped from bringing them again in a malpractice action. As to the third claim, Zeldes argued that Purdy did not suffer any harm because he eventually did receive a reduced sentence for cooperating with the government. Judge Sessions agreed on the issue of collateral estoppel, holding: 8 [I]n the circumstances of this case, where both the district court and the Second Circuit found that Purdy had failed to establish prejudice under Strickland, Purdy is now collaterally estopped from re-litigating the issues presented in his habeas petition in this action. 9 Purdy v. Zeldes, 166 F.Supp.2d 935, 943 (D.Vt.2001). 10 However, the judge held that defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on Purdy's post-sentence claim of negligence. Id. This appeal followed.