evidence is lost. [Laird, supra, 279 Cal.Rptr. at 711.] A system that would permit a plaintiff to commence a malpractice claim fifteen years after an attorney renders allegedly negligent advice is simply unacceptable, yet that result might very well occur, assuming a six-year limitations period for the underlying contract claim, and an estimated three years for the trial and appeal of that claim, and another six-year limitations period for the malpractice claim. Such a potential outcome would frustrate the purposes of limitations periods: to protect against the litigation of stale claims; to stimulate litigants to prosecute their claims diligently; and to penalize dilatoriness. Ochs v. Federal Ins. Co., 90 N.J. 108, 112, 447 A.2d 163 (1982); Farrell v. Vota 319 A.2d 781 (Law Div.1974) (<HOLDING>). Even after an adverse ruling, a litigant may
holding that plaintiff had discovered facts forming basis of malpractice action before judicial declaration in underlying action holding that under the rule against splitting a cause of action a new claim for damages is not barred if the underlying cause of action had not accrued at the time of filing the previous lawsuit holding that the cause of action accrued on the date of sale holding that dismissal is proper for a derivative cause of action but not for a direct cause of action holding that cause of action for malpractice had accrued before underlying actions dismissal