Home › Idaho › Rules of Professional Conduct › Rule 3.2

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

Idaho R. Prof. Conduct 3.2

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

Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation

Advocate

← 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 are expected to move their cases along and avoid unnecessary delays. This means not dragging out a case just to run up legal fees, wear down the other side, or cause frustration. Delays should only happen when they truly help the client's case, not for other reasons.

This rule protects everyone involved in a lawsuit. Court cases can already take a long time, and unnecessary stalling makes things worse for clients, the other party, and the court system. If a lawyer is causing delays that don't serve a real purpose for their client, they are breaking this rule.

At the same time, the rule recognizes that lawyers need to balance speed with doing a good job for their client. Sometimes taking extra time is necessary to properly prepare a case or negotiate a fair settlement. The key question is whether the delay actually benefits the client or whether it's just wasting time.

Committee Notes

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 or other 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