Home › Idaho › Rules of Professional Conduct › Rule 3.1

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

Idaho R. Prof. Conduct 3.1

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

Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions

Advocate

← Previous Rule 2.3: Evaluation for Use by Third Persons Next → Rule 3.2: Expediting Litigation

Rule Text

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

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 can't file lawsuits or raise legal arguments just to waste time or cause trouble. Before bringing a case, defending one, or arguing a specific point, a lawyer needs a real reason based on facts and the law. This doesn't mean the argument has to be a sure winner. Lawyers are allowed to make honest arguments for changing, extending, or overturning current law, as long as they're making the argument in good faith and not just to stall or harass someone.

There's an important exception for criminal cases. If a lawyer represents someone accused of a crime, or someone facing possible jail time in certain other proceedings, that lawyer can push the prosecution to prove every single part of its case. This is true even if the lawyer doesn't have a strong argument that their client is innocent. The government still has to prove its case fully, and the defense lawyer can hold them to that standard without it being considered a frivolous or bad faith defense.

In short, this rule stops lawyers from filing baseless or harassing claims, while still protecting a defendant's right to make prosecutors prove their case in court.

Committee Notes

[1] The advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client's cause, but also a duty not to abuse legal procedure. The law, both procedural and substantive, establishes the limits within which an advocate may proceed. However, the law is not always clear and never is static. Accordingly, in determining the proper scope of advocacy, account must be taken of the law's ambiguities and potential for change.

[2] The filing of an action or defense or similar action taken for a client is not frivolous merely because the facts have not first been fully substantiated or because the lawyer expects to develop vital evidence only by discovery. What is required of lawyers, however, is that they inform themselves about the facts of their clients' cases and the applicable law and determine that they can make good faith arguments in support of their clients' positions. Such action is not frivolous even though the lawyer believes that the client's position ultimately will not prevail. The action is frivolous, however, if the lawyer is unable either to make a good faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.

[3] The lawyer's obligations under this Rule are subordinate to federal or state constitutional law that entitles a defendant in a criminal matter to the assistance of counsel in presenting a claim that otherwise would be prohibited by this Rule.

← Previous Rule 2.3: Evaluation for Use by Third Persons Next → Rule 3.2: Expediting Litigation