in Indiana. Instead, we believe that the well-settled discovery rule should govern the timeliness of legal malpractice actions by criminal defendants. Thus, a criminal defendant is required to file his malpractice action within two years of discovering the malpractice. This rule meets the dual goals of permitting criminal defendants to file claims against their attorneys when they become aware that they have suffered harm, yet relieves attorneys from the prospect of unlimited and unending liability. Further, the discovery rule still allows the application of collateral estoppel in those cases in which a post-conviction or appellate court has determined the issue of a criminal defense attorney’s effectiveness. See Belford v. McHale Cook & Welch, 648 N.E.2d 1241, 1246 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied. As a result, we find that
recognizing claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel usually must be raised in collateral proceeding recognizing application of collateral estoppel in legal malpractice action when federal court had already determined that counsel was not ineffective holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding that a defendant must generally raise claims of ineffective counsel in a collateral proceeding not on direct review holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings not on direct appeal