of the six counts in its complaint at the latest, before the fee arbitration award was confirmed. 3 . As we noted in the earlier appeal of this case, "[a] cause of action for attorney malpractice does not mature until 'the client discovers or reasonably should have discovered the existence of all of the elements of his cause of action.’ ” Andrews v. Wade & De Young, Inc., P.C., 875 P.2d 89, 91 (Alaska 1994) (citing Wettanen v. Cowper, 749 P.2d 362, 364 (Alaska 1988)). Hub City maintains that it learned of the facts which form the basis of its malpractice claims during the course of the attorney's fee recovery litigation— after it served its answer in that case. 4 . State court precedent is to the same effect. See, e.g., Skillman v. First State Bank of Altoona, 341 So.2d 691 (Ala.1977) (<HOLDING>); O’Brien v. Scottsdale Discount Corp., 14
recognizing cause of action for wrongful death recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge holding that wrongful garnishment claim was not barred as a compulsory counterclaim to an earlier action by bank to collect on a note because the wrongful garnishment arose after the time for skillman to answer in the earlier action holding that a failure to include a beneficiary in a wrongful death action is a defect because the wrongful death act restricts plaintiffs to a single action holding that res judicata is not applicable to a claim for relief that was unavailable in the earlier action