of their own lawsuits, nevertheless under some circumstances a litigant may conclude that the underlying case was lost on the merits; then, after seeking independent legal counsel regarding an appeal of the underlying claim, that litigant may become persuaded that the attorney’s negligence actually caused the loss. Consequently, we reject the general assumption in Mant, supra, 189 N.J.Super, at 374, 460 A.2d 172, that, at the latest, a litigant should become aware of an attorney’s fault when the trial court renders its decision in the underlying action. Moreover, an allegedly-negligent attorney’s continuous representation on the appeal of the underlying claim may prevent a litigant from becoming aware of the key element of fault. See Aykan, supra, 238 N.J.Super. at 392, 569 A.2d 905 (<HOLDING>); see also Siegel v. Kranis, 29 A.D.2d 477, 288
holding that allegation that plaintiff relied on defendants representation by entering into a lease with it stated valid cause of action for negligent misrepresentation recognizing that under the discovery rule a cause of action accrues thereby triggering the limitations period when the patient discovers or should have discovered that he or she has a cause of action holding that the plaintiffs mere failure to execute on a judgment the only allegedly fraudulent act is not fraudulent concealment holding that engle established the conduct elements of a fraudulent concealment cause of action holding that continuing course of negligent representation postpones accrual of cause of action until that representation is terminated unless plaintiff earlier discovers injury or fraudulent concealment