Litigation & Advocacy · 10-16% of the exam
13.1.2Expediting litigation (Rule 3.2)
On this page
- A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client (Model Rule 3.2).
Why
Delay costs the other side money and costs the court its docket, and it can quietly become a tactic in its own right. A client who profits from a case moving slowly gives the lawyer every incentive to let it drift. The rule denies that incentive any standing.
Plain English
Make reasonable efforts to expedite the litigation, consistent with the client's interests. Occasional postponements for genuine personal reasons are permissible, and so is the delay a genuine preparation need or scheduling conflict requires, because that serves the client's interests.
What does not count as a legitimate client interest is realizing financial or other benefit from otherwise improper delay — so a continuance sought only because slowness itself pays serves no substantial purpose other than delay, and is not consistent with a legitimate client interest, even though the client gains.
The question is whether a competent lawyer acting in good faith would regard the course of action as having some substantial purpose other than delay, and it is not proper to routinely fail to expedite litigation solely for the convenience of the advocates.
Rule
A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client (Model Rule 3.2).
Comment [1]: realizing financial or other benefit from otherwise improper delay in litigation is not a legitimate interest of the client.
Comment [1]: the question is whether a competent lawyer acting in good faith would regard the course of action as having some substantial purpose other than delay.
Comment [1]: it is not proper for a lawyer to routinely fail to expedite litigation solely for the convenience of the advocates.
Occasional postponements for genuine personal reasons are permissible.
Trap
Questions · 1
Q 01ch13-e03
Question 1 of 1 · Rule 3.2
Attorney represented Defendant, a roofing supplier, in a breach-of-warranty action brought by a hotel chain. Under the parties' contract the supplier owes interest on the disputed amount only from the date of judgment, so the supplier keeps the money earning interest for as long as the case stays open. Attorney had finished trial preparation and had no conflicting commitment on the trial date. Attorney moved for a third continuance anyway, explaining to the client that every month of delay was worth money and that the buyer's litigation budget might run dry first. The court granted the motion and reset the trial. Is Attorney subject to discipline?
Keys 1 to 4 choose.