Additionally, the SJC rejected Otis» arguments that
judicial estoppel should not be applied because: (1) Otis is bringing the present suit as an assignee of Cusick and is therefore presenting Cusick's claims, not his own; (2) Otis himself did not make inconsistent statement
under oath concerning his comparative negligence; and (3) the SJC previously rejected use of
judicial estoppel in cases of assignment of legal malpractice claims.
Under federal law, the doctrine of
judicial estoppel is designed to protect the
judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.