With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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,

A: holding that plaintiff had discovered facts forming basis of malpractice action before judicial declaration in underlying action
B: holding that newly discovered  facts underlying the movants new cause of action  is sufficient to show diligence
C: holding that cause of action for malpractice had accrued before underlying actions dismissal
D: 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
A.