Capitol Hill Group, Inc. v. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
569 F.3d 485 (2009)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Capitol Hill Group (CHG) (plaintiff) was involved in a zoning dispute in the District of Columbia. CHG filed for bankruptcy and was represented by Shaw Pittman (defendant). During the course of the bankruptcy proceeding, Shaw Pittman terminated its representation of CHG. Subsequently, the District of Columbia’s Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) issued an order affecting CHG’s rights and, presumably believing that Shaw Pittman still represented CHG, sent the order to Shaw Pittman but not CHG. Meanwhile, as part of the bankruptcy proceeding, CHG filed a complaint, alleging that Shaw Pittman’s fees were unreasonable in light of the quality of the representation the firm provided. The bankruptcy court upheld the fees. Separately, CHG brought suit against Shaw Pittman, alleging that the firm’s failure to forward the BZA order constituted malpractice. The district court granted Shaw Pittman summary judgment, finding that CHG’s malpractice claim was barred by res judicata. CHG appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.