a party fails to challenge that decision in an actual appeal. See id. at 992-93; see also Capps v. Sullivan, 13 F.3d 350, 353 (10th Cir.1993) (declining to review an issue because the parties did not contest it in their prior appeal); Laffey v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 740 F.2d 1071, 1090 (D.C.Cir.1984) (explaining that when a party fails to challenge a decision in its first appeal, that appeal affirms the lower court’s decision for purposes of the law of the case). If no appeal is taken, as was the case here, the apposite doctrine is that of issue preclusion. See generally Charles Alan Wright et al., 18A Federal Practice and Procedure § 4433 (2d ed.2002); see also id. 18B Federal Practice and Procedure § 4478.6, at 819 (“If no one appeals on any issue, the judgment of the trial cou 1987) (<HOLDING>). We recognize, however, that the BAP’s
holding that the trustee did not breach its fiduciary duty when its actions were consistent with the trust instrument holding that a debtor could not relitigate the claim that the trustee breached his fiduciary duty because the bankruptcy court had already held that the trustees actions were not improper holding that an attorney for a debtor owes a general fiduciary duty to preserve the bankruptcy estate holding that trustee could not have breached settlement agreement pending court approval by engaging in behavior violative of the agreement since bankruptcy court formally endorsed trustees course of action holding that bankruptcy discharge eliminates only a debtors personal liability and not the debt itself and that a bankruptcy trustee stands in the shoes of the debtor and can bring a legal malpractice claim as trustee