California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Worton v. Worton, 234 Cal.App.3d 1638, 286 Cal.Rptr. 410 (Cal. App. 1991):
1 It is possible a client may have an action in small claims court or municipal court for some attorney fees required to mitigate or cure the effects of the lawyer's malpractice. This cause of action may exist irrespective of the outcome of the appeal in the underlying action. Yet this possibility should not start the statute running on the malpractice action itself which requires proof the client was denied a "collectible judgment." (Campbell v. Magana (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 751, 754, 761, 8 Cal.Rptr. 32.) If the client prevails on appeal in the underlying case he will not have been denied a "collectible judgment" and his cause of action will fail. So until that appeal is resolved the client has not suffered the sort of "actual and appreciable" (or "irremediable") harm required to complete a legal malpractice cause of action.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.