Home › Delaware › Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct › Rule 3.2

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

Del. Lawyers' R. Prof. Cond. 3.2

Not legal advice. Verify against official sources before relying on this text in any legal matter.

Rule 3.2 Expediting litigation

← Previous Rule 3.1: Meritorious claims and contentions Next → Rule 3.3: Candor toward the tribunal

Rule Text

A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.

Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)

This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.

Lawyers have a duty to keep cases moving forward at a reasonable pace. They can't drag out a case just to run up legal fees, wear down the other side, or cause unnecessary delay. Dragging your feet on paperwork, deadlines, or scheduling without a good reason goes against this duty.

This doesn't mean a lawyer has to rush a case or skip steps that actually help their client. Sometimes a delay is genuinely necessary, like when more time is needed to gather evidence or prepare a solid argument. The rule simply means delays should happen for real reasons tied to the client's best interests, not as a stalling tactic or a way to make the process harder on everyone else involved.

For someone involved in a lawsuit, this rule offers some protection against a lawyer, even one on the opposing side, causing pointless delays that waste time and money. If a case seems to be stuck with no good explanation, this rule is one reason why that shouldn't be happening.

Committee Notes

[1] Dilatory practices bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Although there will be occasions when a lawyer may properly seek a postponement for personal reasons, it is not proper for a lawyer to routinely fail to expedite litigation solely for the convenience of the advocates. Nor will a failure to expedite be reasonable if done for the purpose of frustrating an opposing party’s attempt to obtain rightful redress or repose. It is not a justification that similar conduct is often tolerated by the bench and bar. 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. Realizing financial orother benefit from otherwise improper delay in litigation is not a legitimate interest of the client.

← Previous Rule 3.1: Meritorious claims and contentions Next → Rule 3.3: Candor toward the tribunal