Ripeness in legal terms means that a dispute is so fully developed that a court might determine the rights and liabilities of the parties.  This issue arises in legal malpractice settings because the underlying case (the case within a case) is not always finished or fully litigated.  When the underlying case is not yet fully finished, courts sometimes hold that the legal malpractice case is not yet ready to be heard, or is unripe.

In SHEILA FINCH,  v. TOOHER, WOCL & LEYDON, LLC, and TOOHER & WOCL, LLC, ; CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-cv-713(CFD); UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT;2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136958;December 28, 2010 we see the following:

"On May 23, 2008, plaintiff Sheila Finch’s son, James Avalone, was arrested in Stamford, Connecticut. In an attempt to conceal drugs from the police, Avalone ingested the morphine and methadone tablets he was carrying. Avalone died of the overdose in his cellblock at the Stamford Police Department that day. On May 28, 2008, Finch signed an agreement with Tooher, Wocl & Leydon ("the firm") who agreed to investigate the case and, if appropriate, file a civil suit against the Stamford Police Department relating to the death of her son. The firm never brought a lawsuit, and Finch hired a second lawyer, John Williams. With her new counsel, Finch filed this action for legal malpractice and breach of contract against the firm on May 10, 2010, and also a suit against the City of Stamford for violating the civil rights of James Avalone in connection [*2] with his death. Finch v. Stamford, No. 3:10-cv-748 (D.Conn.) (Kravitz, J.) "

"Although the resolution of the case before Judge Kravitz may have an impact on the quantity of damages Finch may be able to recover from the firm, this suit is nevertheless still ripe for review now. The Connecticut Supreme Court, in Mayer v. [*4] Biafore, Florek and O’Neill, noted that while "all legal malpractice cases are based on underlying rights," to "require that the underlying dispute as to those rights, in all cases, must be completely resolved prior to bringing a malpractice action would unduly restrict the plaintiff’s remedy against the allegedly negligent lawyer." Mayer, 245 Conn. 88, 92, 713 A.2d 1267 (1998). "