I have never felt fully comfortable with the rule that a convicted defendant must demonstrate that he or she is actually innocenct of the crime alleged in order to sue a defense attorney for malpractice. I therefore welcome opinions such as Brooks v. Shemaria (Download b187434.pdf)
which holds that the rule does not bar a claim based on a fee agreement (not new news) nor does it bar a claim for negligent failure to seek the return of seized property found unrelated to the crimes of which the defendant had been convicted (new in that it allows a competence-based claim to proceed). Seems right to me.
DM