Home › Iowa › Rules of Professional Conduct › Rule 32:3.2

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

Iowa R. Prof'l Conduct 32:3.2

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

Rule 32:3.2 Expediting Litigation

Advocate

← Previous Rule 32:3.1: Meritorious Claims and Contentions Next → Rule 32:3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal

Rule Text

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

Amendment history: Court Order April 20, 2005, effective July 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 need to keep cases moving instead of dragging them out. This means avoiding unnecessary delays, like filing extra motions just to buy time or slow-walking paperwork that doesn't help the client's case.

A lawyer can still take the time needed to properly prepare and represent their client. The rule doesn't stop lawyers from asking for extensions when they genuinely need more time, or from fighting hard for their client's interests. What it stops is using delay as a tactic, like stalling a case just to wear down the other side, run up legal costs, or avoid dealing with an issue.

For someone involved in a lawsuit, this rule matters because court cases can already take a long time. If you feel like the other side's lawyer is deliberately slowing things down for no good reason, this rule says that behavior isn't allowed. Judges can also point to this rule when deciding whether to grant extensions or when addressing complaints about delay tactics in a case.

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.

← Previous Rule 32:3.1: Meritorious Claims and Contentions Next → Rule 32:3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal