Legal malpractice claims are unique in that a plaintiff must convince a jury that (i) it would have prevailed in the underlying case (the case which the plaintiff alleges the attorney did not properly litigate) and (ii) the attorney representing the plaintiff in that underlying case in fact committed malpractice in the way the underlying case was handled. In a recent decision, the First Department overruled its past decision and held that in an action alleging legal malpractice, the plaintiff does not have to show that it would have successfully collected against the defendant in the underlying case had it won.