This decision holds that attorney Kim is collaterally estopped by a judgment against his client Central Korean Evangelical Church which held that Kim’s lien on the church property for payment of his attorney fees was invalid and voiding it to permit sale of the property to close. Kim was not just the lawyer for Central Korean but also had a financial interest in the lien question because he sought the lien to guarantee payment to him. And he controlled the litigation in cooperation with his client Central Korean: Kim wrote the complaint, and Kim presumably recommended a litigation strategy and gave advice on litigation tactics. Kim was Central Korean’s attorney throughout, and he could have sought leave to intervene to protect his lien and financial interest.