the settlement to be a fair resolution of its underlying claims with the nursing homes, but only a mitigation of damages after plaintiff lost the trial court motion to amend its complaint. Plaintiff further contended its malpractice action was its only viable remedy to Squitieri’s negligence. Plaintiff argued it was not required as a matter of law to exhaust its appellate remedies or continue the prophylactic, and potentially frivolous, subsequent lawsuits against the nursing homes to perfect its legal malpractice claim. Rather, plaintiff contended, it only was required to take reasonable steps to avoid the consequences of its former attorney’s tortious conduct before it sued the attorney for malpractice. See Spaulding v. Hussain, 229 N.J.Super. 430, 444, 551 A.2d 1022 (App.Div.1988) (<HOLDING>); see also Covino v. Peck, 233 N.J.Super. 612,
holding that the defendant was only permitted to recover attorney fees as an item of special damages with respect to the underlying action in which the defendant was sued and was not permitted to recover attorney fees incurred in the malpractice portion of the case as damages holding professional malpractice claim not contractual holding that election of remedies did not apply because legalmalpractice plaintiffs allegations in the underlying partnership dispute were  consistent with his allegations in his malpractice action against his litigation attorney in the underlying case holding that the plaintiffs inadequate settlement of his underlying claim at trial was a reasonable mitigation of damages in the professional malpractice action against his treating physician for failing to appear in court as promised because the plaintiff and his attorney were threatened with a litigation catastrophe holding that a clients legal malpractice action instituted after his attorney failed to file suit in new jersey within the statute of limitations was a reasonable response to a legal catastrophe and was not barred by the doctrine of mitigation of damages although the client could have filed suit against one of the underlying tortfeasors in mississippi which had a longer statute of limitations the client was not required to litigate in an inconvenient forum in an attempt to extricate the defendant from his own wrongful act