an automatic bar to its malpractice suit against Squitieri. Plaintiff contended that, like the plaintiff in Ziegelheim, it attempted to remedy its counsel’s negligence at the trial court—the Ziegelheim plaintiff filed a motion to set aside an ill-advised and inadequate matrimonial settlement her attorney had recommended, and Prospect filed a motion to amend its complaint to include the omitted Medicare reimbursement claims its principal contended Squitieri was aware of from the outset. When the trial court denied plaintiffs motion, as it did in Ziegelheim, plaintiff argued it thus should have been entitled to the same relief of pursuing a legal malpractice action against its former counsel. Plaintiff distinguished Puder, emphasizing that it never represen 9, 559 A.2d 868 (App.Div.1989) (<HOLDING>). Cf. Puder, supra, 183 N.J. at 440, 874 A.2d
holding that the statute of limitations for an attorney malpractice suit did not begin to run until the client had suffered some actual damage holding that client was not barred from recovering all damages in legal malpractice suit assessed against him in previous case holding that under florida law for the purposes of collateral estoppel an attorney is in privity with his or her client in a previous suit when the opposing party in that action brings a subsequent suit against the attorney based in the same facts 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 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