does raise an issue on the merits of plaintiff's tort claim — i.e. whether defendants’ advice to plaintiff regarding patent invalidity and non-infringement was tortiously negligent. The evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, shows that Goldhammer failed fully to inform Sherman’s officers of the risks of suing Proto-Vest, and of available alternative courses of action. 8 . See Garcia v. Community Legal Services Corporation, 362 Pa.Super. 484, 524 A.2d 980 (1987). Judge Cirillo in Garcia stated in dictum that he was not called upon to resolve the open question of Pennsylvania law whether the statute of limitations ran from the time of the decision at trial or was tolled pending the decision on appeal. But see Bowman v. Abramson, 545 F.Supp. 227 (1982) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Judge O’Neill specified in Lactaid that
holding that plaintiffs legal malpractice claim was not ripe until the appeal had been exhausted because plaintiffs harm remained speculative until then holding that the threat of injury was not speculative because the plaintiffs had been previously charged under the challenged statute holding that because plaintiffs iied claim is based on the facts that support plaintiffs malicious prosecution claim plaintiffs iied claim did not accrue until the charges against them were dismissed holding that plaintiffs could not sue attorneys for legal malpractice so long as underlying medical malpractice action out of which legal malpractice claim arose was still pending on appeal holding that cause of action for malpractice did not arise until the tax deficiency was assessed because prior to assessment the plaintiff had not been injured