[brief] Likewise, the new legal malpractice claims against [...] were not and could not have been known or claimed prior to the dismissal of the previous claims, because they similarly arise solely out of [...]’s ownership of Defendant [...], a fact that could not have been and was not previously known or alleged.  The new legal malpractice claims against [...] have absolutely no connection to the prior, dismissed legal malpractice claims, and the prior dismissal of malpractice claims was not and could not have been a “global” dismissal of all malpractice claims whether known or unknown.  Instead, the prior, dismissed claims, as Defendants argued and [...] erroneously held, were all legal malpractice claims arising out of [...]’s legal work on behalf of Plaintiffs with respect to the transaction.  The new legal malpractice claims against [...], on the other hand, were solely supported by the previously unknown and unknowable fact that [...] was the sole member of [...] and therefore committed malpractice by failing to advise Plaintiffs of that fact.  Plaintiffs did not and could not have pled such a legal malpractice claim previously, and therefore it is impossible to hold that this legal malpractice claim was already dismissed.  At the time they filed the original Complaint, Plaintiffs could not and did not state any tort claims against [...] arising out of his role as sole member of [...].  Accordingly, Plaintiffs could not and did not state any legal malpractice claims against [...] arising out of their failure to advise Plaintiffs that [...] was the sole member of [...].  As the Court can read in the “First Count” of Plaintiffs’ Complaint (13a–15a) which was dismissed by [...], the prior, dismissed legal malpractice claim alleged that [...] committed malpractice by way of their failure to advise Plaintiffs of their fraudulent scheme and participation in the conspiracy, and how Plaintiffs’ money would actually be wrongfully taken and distributed among the co-conspirator Defendants.  On the other hand, as the Court can read in the “Twelfth Count” of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint (371a–372a), Plaintiffs alleged that [...] committed malpractice by failing to: a) advise Plaintiffs that Defendant [...] was the sole member of Defendant [...]; b) advise Plaintiffs that Defendant [...] solely, or with Defendant [...], operated Defendant [...], the sham entity to which Plaintiffs were directed by Defendants [...] and [...] to make payments in pursuit of the [...]-MTDC Assignment and Releases.  It is self-evident that the previously dismissed claim for legal malpractice had absolutely none of the factual predicates of the legal malpractice claim in the Amended Complaint, and for obvious reason: Plaintiffs did not know and could not have known at the time of the filing of the Complaint that [...] was the sole member of [...] and operated [...] as a sham entity.  These facts only emerged during the course of discovery, after the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ prior claims.  Therefore, Plaintiffs’ new claims against [...] are certainly new and were never dismissed by [...] because they were not known and could not have been pled at the time of the original Complaint.  For these reasons, the Trial Court’s error should be reversed and Plaintiffs should be permitted to amend the Complaint and state their newly discovered claims.