Div., Chemetron Corp., 62 N.J. 111, 115, 299 A.2d 394 (1973); P.T. & L. Constr. v. Madigan & Hyland, 245 N.J.Super. 201, 206, 584 A.2d 850 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 330, 598 A.2d 888 (1991). Turning to the element of fault, we start from the previously-stated proposition that a cause of action accrues only when a plaintiff knows or should know that the damage is attributable to the attorney’s negligent advice. Depending on the circumstances, knowledge of fault may occur before or during a judicial resolution of the underlying action. See, e.g., Mant, supra, 189 N.J.Super. at 374, 460 A.2d 172 (remanding case so that court could evaluate whether elements of injury and fault existed before adverse ruling on underlying claim); Aykan, supra, 238 N.J.Super. at 392, 569 A.2d 905 (<HOLDING>); Fuschetti v. Bierman, 128 N.J.Super. 290,
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 newly discovered  facts underlying the movants new cause of action  is sufficient to show diligence holding that cause of action for malpractice had accrued before underlying actions dismissal holding that a plaintiff is not required to state the statutory or constitutional basis for his claim only the facts underlying it holding that plaintiff had discovered facts forming basis of malpractice action before judicial declaration in underlying action