I am not a lawyer (I'm UK based) You are a lawyer (probably local). My understanding is that legal positions and arguments (within Common Law) need not be cons

I am not a lawyer (I'm UK based) You are a lawyer (probably local). My understanding is that legal positions and arguments (within Common Law) need not be consistent across "cases" - they are considered in isolation with regards the body of law extant at the time. I think that Sam can quite happily argue two differing points of view to two courts. Until a judgement is made, those arguments are simply arguments and not "binding" or even "influential elsewhere" or whatever the correct terms are. I think he can legitimately argue both ways but may not have it both ways.