Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions

The advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client’s cause, but

also 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.

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 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.