I have written in the past about whether a plaintiff in a legal malpractice action arising out of the alleged mishandling of the plaintiff's underlying case should have to prove not only that the firm committed malpractice and that damages would have been awarded if malpractice had not occurred but also that the damages were collectable. This post will link you other posts on this subject.
The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that "(1) the amount of damages that would have been collectible in the prior suit is the greater of the amount of a judgment for damages that would have been either paid or collected from the underlying defendant's net assets; and (2) the time at which collectibility is determined is as of or after the time a judgment was first signed in the underlying case."
The case is AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, L.L.P. v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH CORPORATION, No. 07-0818 (Texas Oct. 30, 2009). Read the opinion here.