What is the name of your state? FL
If you sue a lawyer for malpractice, you have to basically show that you would have won your case in the first place, if the lawyer had performed properly. But do you have to go to the extent of actually proving the original case entirely, or just show that it was likely, or that there would be a reasonable expectation of success, or what is the standard of proof?
It occurs to me that the defendants who were originally the opposition could be brought in to support a malpractice case, and since it's not their heinie on the line anymore, why would they object? They might even admit the original malfeasance.