PROBLEM OF TAKING INCONSISTENT POSITIONS IN COURT

One would refer to the doctrine of judicial estoppel to prevent litigants from asserting claims in a court proceeding that are inconsistent with a prior statement, one would refer to the doctrine of judicial estoppel. This doctrine preserves the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions due to the likelihood of being defeated by the opposing side. Additionally, when this doctrine is applied, the court uses its inherent discretion in an effort to prohibit fraudulent activities by litigants.



For instance, if a litigant prevails in a judicial proceeding and takes a particular position, they can not come back later and present an inconsistent position in relation to judicial proceedings. Some courts treat this doctrine as an affirmative defense under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c).

Law of the Doctrine Of Judicial Estoppel

The U.S. Supreme Court held that in the New Hampshire v. Maine case, the doctrine of judicial estoppel might not apply if a party has a prior position that was based on inadvertence. Whether or not there is a precise formula for determining when to use this doctrine, the court provided three factors in which the doctrine applies:

• Whether a party’s later position is inconsistent with its earlier position;
• Whether the party successfully persuaded a court to accept that party’s position in a later proceeding would create the perception that either the first or the second court misled; and
• Whether the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped.
  

In the case of Shufeldt v. Baker, the court found that the doctrine of judicial estoppel applied to the plaintiff’s legal malpractice claims against his former law firm. In the original litigation, the plaintiff reached a settlement in which he contended that the settlement was less favorable than it could have been due to his time-barred claims. The plaintiff presented distinct positions during the proceeding, later leading the court to determine that the doctrine of judicial estoppel was applicable.

Lastly, three essential tips to recall when applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel. First, when invoking the doctrine, caution should be taken to prevent the destruction of the truth-seeking function of the court. To add, this is because the doctrine prevents a contradictory position rather than examining the truth of either statement claimed by a litigant. Secondly, it’s crucial to comprehend fully what the opposing party files in their initial position in the proceeding to ensure that they are not wavering from either side. If it is found that they have, the claims can be dismissed entirely. And lastly, if the doctrine is found to be applicable, you must consider the factors from the New Hampshire v. Maine case. Notably, there are other factors that can render the doctrine applicable based on the facts in the case.