Home › Illinois › Rules of Professional Conduct › Rule 3.2

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

Ill. RPC 3.2

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

Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation

Article VIII: Rules of Professional Conduct

← 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.

Amendment history: Adopted July 1, 2009, effective January 1, 2010.

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 required to move their client's case forward without unnecessary delays. They cannot slow things down just because it is convenient for them or to make things harder for the other side.

A lawyer can ask for a postponement when there is a real reason, like a personal emergency. But they cannot make a habit of dragging out a case with no good reason. The fact that other lawyers do it and judges sometimes allow it does not make it okay.

The basic test is simple: would a good lawyer, acting honestly, see a real purpose behind the delay other than just stalling? If the only reason for slowing things down is to benefit the lawyer financially or to wear out the other side, that is not allowed.

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 or other benefit from otherwise improper delay in litigation is not a legitimate interest of the client.

Adopted July 1, 2009, effective January 1, 2010.

← Previous Rule 3.1: Meritorious Claims and Contentions Next → Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal