Possible moral of the story: Having a rude, incompetent lawyer does not mean that the case the rude, incompetent lawyer failed to investigate or to file on a timely basis is worth a bucket of spit. But, what if the failure to investigate made it impossible, at a later time, to know whether or not there had been evidence in support of the claim that could have been found had there been a timely investigation? Maybe in this case, the lawyer’s failure to investigate turned out to benefit his malpractice carrier in that the lack of evidence in support of the underlying claim served as a defense to the malpractice claim. Interesting possibility. Incompetence provides a defense to itself.