WPC .dTP*}+KSNIo,>s(_QJsP;t۱v}2SPљY;_T7+Q {klN8(yjN$D6F2 ?PCKU=-mz6xOށEd+DpI9rԥ (:K_$+%#vBkI 'M\ x㋴*}7b$GhNrn)'$;d(]$BlPY݄=5_S|~V݋4@1;ؽ[QOVrdm ;~6o#vL:~x44`@8QkUD6ˢUPElعF6l.km;tm1)"ukW#UN % 0:^  w 4! 5 D mF U @] UN  1 72z 1u 72! 0cS 1 72= 0~o E 0D b3 1; 72 1 72{ 1 7244444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 BfHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,s~E+s j5++003|xU(I Z(Times New Roman ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular (5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0  - -(CEKQW]cioAutoList3i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.(ehCEKQW]cioAutoList41.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(uhCEKQW]cioAutoList51.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. 1. d !USUS.,  _  tXX tt XX t    8XXdd8@ # tX X# O tINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE# t O_# XX tԈ &   # tX X#June13,2001Session XX t L  # tX Xo#_JOHNIE_ԀN.GIBSONv.DOUGLAS_TRANT_,etal.  J  XX t@@ AppealfromtheCourtofAppeals,MiddleSection  J CircuitCourtforKnoxCounty  6 @@No.339993WheelerA._Rosenbalm_,Judge  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199900390SCR11CVFiledOctober5,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,J.,concurringanddissenting. x  # tX XQ# XX t#XXX Xh#  Themajorityhasadoptedarulewhichrequirestheplaintifftoshowthathehasbeen P exoneratedofthecrimeinordertomaintainalegalmalpracticeactionagainstanattorneyfor < representationinacriminalproceeding.Applyingthisrule,themajorityholdsthatGibsonsclaim (x mustfail.IamincompleteagreementwiththeconclusionthatGibsonsclaimmustfail,forre d reviewofanattorneyseffectivenessincaseswherethemalpracticeplaintiffhasbeendeniedpost P convictionreliefisneedlessbecausetheissuehasbeenconclusivelydetermined. <   Ourpointofdifference,however,iswhetherexonerationorcollateralestoppelshouldguard  thedoor.Iwriteseparately,then,toexpresstheviewthatcollateralestoppelisasufficient,  appropriaterequirementintheresolutionofthisclassofcase.    Inchoosingexoneration,themajorityapparentlyhasadoptedthesentimentoftheCalifornia t SupremeCourt.InWileyv.CountyofSanDiego,thecourtreasonedthatinthecontextoflegal ` malpracticeonthecriminalside, adefendantsowncriminalactremainstheultimatesourceofhis L  predicamentirrespectiveofcounselssubsequentnegligence.966P.2d983,988(Cal.1998). 8!    Themajoritysposition!thataplaintiffshouldbebarredfromrecoverybecauseheorshe #`" sharesresponsibilityforthepredicament!seemsreminiscentoftheantiquateddoctrineof #L# contributorynegligencethatthisCourtabolishednearlyadecadeago.SeeMcIntyrev.Balentine, $8 $ 833S.W.2d52(Tenn.1992).Whilenotaperfectanalogy,themajorityrationale,whenappliedin %$!% amedicalmalpracticecontext,woulddenyapatienttherighttosueaphysicianfornegligent &"& treatmentofaselfinflictedwound.Forinboththemedicalandlegalmalpracticecontext,onemight '"' saythatthepatient/clientisthe ultimatesourceofhisorherpredicament. (#(   TheexonerationrequirementwassoundlyrejectedbytheOhioSupremeCourtinVahilav. p*%* Hall,674N.E.2d1164,116869(Ohio1997).Thecourtheldthattheplaintiffdidnotneedtoprove \+&+ exonerationinhisunderlyingcriminalcaseasaconditionprecedenttoproceedingagainsthis H,', attorneyinalegalmalpracticeaction.Id.at1171.Thecourtrecognizedthat stringentstandards 4-(-C ofprovingbutforrequiretheplaintifftoconductatrialwithinatrialtoshowthevalidityofhis  underlyingclaim.Id.at1169(quotingNote,TheStandardofProofofCausationinLegal  MalpracticeCases,63CornellL.Rev.666,67071(1978)).Thecourtalsorecognizedthatatrial  withinatrial maywelldiscouragethefewplaintiffsotherwisewillingtopursuetheslimchanceof t success.Vahila,674N.E.2dat1169.Thecourtheldthatablanketexonerationrequirement `  wouldbeunjust,makinganyrecoveryvirtuallyimpossibleforthosewhotrulyhaveameritorious L  legalmalpracticeclaim.Id.at1170. 8    Collateralestoppelistheproperrationaletoemployinthiscase.Indeterminingwhether  ` collateralestoppelisappropriate,theCourtshouldconsiderwhether:(1)theissueisidenticaltothe  L  issuedecidedintheearliersuit;(2)theissuewasactuallylitigatedanddecidedonitsmerits;(3)the  8  judgmentintheearliersuithasbecomefinal;(4)thepartyagainstwhomcollateralestoppelis $  assertedwasapartytotheearliersuit;and(5)thepartyagainstwhomcollateralestoppelisasserted   hadafullandfairopportunityintheearliersuittolitigatetheissue.Beatyv.McGraw,15S.W.3d   819,82425(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Collateralestoppel barsthesamepartiesortheirpriviesfrom   relitigatinginasecondsuitissuesthatwereactuallyraisedanddeterminedinanearliersuit.Id.   at824.Asaresult,thedoctrinepreventsacriminaldefendantwhofailedtoestablishineffective p assistanceofcounselfromsustainingacivillegalmalpracticeactionagainsthisorherattorney. \    `    TheissuesthatGibsonseekstobringbeforethestatecourtaresimilartotheissuesthathe  p litigatedinthefederalcourt.ApplicationofthecollateralestoppeldoctrinewouldbindGibsonto  \ thefederalcourtsdeterminationthathewaseffectivelyassistedbycounsel. H   Thus,Iseenoneedtoreachexonerationbecausecollateralestoppelwillprovideaneffective   barriertooftfrivolousclaims.Thedifferenceisthatwhilecollateralestoppelclosesthedoor,   exonerationsealsit.Anditsealsiteffectively,eventoegregiousnegligentconductandthemost  compellingclaim.    Forthereasonstatedabove,Irespectfullydissent. p      l  XXXX   `     h     ___________________________________ #l! # tX XC# XX t   `     h     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,JUSTICE#XXX X##tXX`#