Home › Indiana › Rules of Professional Conduct › Rule 3.1

Rule 3.1 1. Meritorious Claims and Contentions

← Previous Rule 2.4: 4. Lawyer Serving as Third-Party Neutral Next → Rule 3.2: 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.

Amendment history: Effective January 1, 2005

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 harass someone. Before bringing a case, defending one, or arguing a specific point, a lawyer needs a real legal and factual reason for doing so. This doesn't mean the argument has to be a sure winner. Lawyers are allowed to make good faith arguments that existing laws should be changed, expanded, or overturned, even if those arguments are new or untested.

There's a special exception for criminal cases. If someone is charged with a crime, or faces a situation where they could go to jail, their lawyer can fight the case hard. This means the lawyer can require the prosecution to prove every single part of its case, even if the lawyer doesn't have a specific defense to offer. The lawyer isn't being frivolous just because they're making the government do its job and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The bottom line is that this rule stops lawyers from filing bogus claims or making arguments with no real basis. At the same time, it protects a lawyer's ability to challenge existing laws and to defend people accused of crimes without being punished for simply doing their job.

Committee Notes

Comment

[1] The advocate has 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 or contention that otherwise would be prohibited by this Rule.

← Previous Rule 2.4: 4. Lawyer Serving as Third-Party Neutral Next → Rule 3.2: 2. Expediting Litigation

This Rule Set

View All Ind. R. Prof. Cond. Rules

Last updated: August 2026

Report an error