“We do not find that, based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, the asserted casual connection between Dicke’s conduct and the Resors’ loss is too speculative as a matter of law to sufficiently plead a legal malpractice claim,” Judge Mark C. Miller wrote for the court. “Further supporting this finding is the (alleged) fact that, after the Resors hired alternate legal counsel, they succeeded in having the three dependency cases dismissed and gained back custody of their children.”