Competence & Malpractice · 6-12% of the exam
11.2.1Diligence: Promptness and Follow-Through (Rule 1.3)
Why
Competent work that is never completed helps no client. The diligence rule targets procrastination, unmanageable workload, and quiet abandonment from acceptance through completion.
Plain English
Rule 1.3 says one thing: act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Comment [1] adds the register — take whatever lawful and ethical measures the client's cause requires, with "zeal in advocacy upon the client's behalf," while remaining "not bound to press for every advantage." Comment [3] leaves room to say yes to a reasonable request for a postponement that will not prejudice the client, and no further: agreeing to a delay that does prejudice the client can itself violate Rule 1.3.
Misleading a client about the status of your work is a separate violation on top of neglect, and its homes are Rule 1.4(a)(3) (keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter) and Rule 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), not Rule 1.3. A single episode of either suffices for discipline; no pattern is required.
Rule 1.3 — Diligence
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
What diligence covers, and the fifth point is a violation on its own — under Rules 1.4(a)(3) and 8.4(c) rather than Rule 1.3:
- Control workload: manage the caseload so each matter can be handled competently.
- Dedication: despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to you, take whatever lawful and ethical steps are necessary to vindicate the client's cause; offensive tactics or discourteous treatment are not required.
- Comment [3] — Reasonable postponement: promptness does not preclude agreeing to a reasonable request for a postponement that will not prejudice the client.
- Complete through scope: follow through until completion as defined by the scope of representation. Comment [4]: doubt about whether the client-lawyer relationship still exists should be clarified by the lawyer, preferably in writing.
- Status misrepresentation is a separate violation: misleading a client about progress is independently disciplinable under Rule 1.4(a)(3) (keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter) and Rule 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation); a single instance suffices.
- Personal hardship (settled practice rather than rule text): affects the severity of sanctions, not whether a violation occurred; a lawyer facing hardship must take reasonable steps to place matters on temporary hold rather than let them languish.
A single act of procrastination suffices for Rule 1.3 discipline, and a single misleading status communication suffices under Rules 1.4(a)(3) and 8.4(c); no pattern is required.
Example 1
Ex. 1
Gina took an insurance-defense matter, filed the answer, then did nothing for eight months. Hana called twice during that period; after each call Gina sent a letter stating that research was ongoing. No trial date had been set and the statute of limitations still had months left to run. No deadline had been missed.
Gina faces discipline on two independent grounds. Eight months of inactivity constitutes neglect even though no deadline was missed. The status letters falsely describing ongoing research are independently disciplinable under Rule 1.4(a)(3) and Rule 8.4(c). A single instance of each suffices, and no demonstrated harm is required. Count the two grounds separately: eight months of silence, and two letters describing work that wasn't happening.
Example 2
Ex. 2
Ivan accepted a collection matter for Jay in January. By September he had sent no discovery requests and hadn't contacted opposing counsel. He had emailed Jay in March stating he was monitoring the docket. No trial date had been set; the three-year limitations period had two years remaining. The bar charged neglect. Ivan's counsel argued no concrete harm had occurred. The bar found a Rule 1.3 violation: procrastination itself is the violation; a missed deadline isn't required. Check whether a missed deadline is doing any work in this outcome — it is not.
Trap
Tip
Questions · 2
Q 01ch11-e06
Question 1 of 2 · Rule 1.3
Attorney agreed to pursue a wage claim for Employee and filed the initial charge in March. Nothing further happened for seven months: no records were requested, the assigned investigator was never contacted, and the file sat untouched on a shelf. Attorney later explained that a heavy caseload had pushed the matter down the pile and that nothing about it seemed urgent. Employee telephoned twice during that stretch to ask how matters stood. The limitations period had more than two years left to run, no hearing had been scheduled, and no agency deadline had come and gone. Employee lost nothing, and the claim is still alive. This was the only matter Attorney had let sit. Is Attorney subject to discipline?
Keys 1 to 4 choose.