Home › Missouri › Rules of Professional Conduct › Rule 4-3.2

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

Mo. R. Prof'l Conduct 4-3.2

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

Rule 4-3.2 Advocate - Expediting Litigation

Rules of Professional Conduct

← Previous Rule 4-3.1: Advocate - Meritorious Claims and Contentions Next → Rule 4-3.3: Advocate - 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 Aug. 7, 1985, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended March 1, 2007, eff. July 1, 2007.)

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 have to work at a reasonable pace to keep a case moving forward. They can't drag their feet, pile on delays, or stall just to wear down the other side, run up legal bills, or cause frustration.

That said, this doesn't mean a lawyer has to rush or cut corners. If a delay actually helps the client's case in a fair and legitimate way, like taking time to gather important evidence, that's still allowed. The rule is really about stopping lawyers from using stall tactics as a weapon or a way to avoid doing their job.

For someone involved in a lawsuit, this rule is meant to protect you from unnecessary waiting. If your lawyer, or the lawyer on the other side, seems to be delaying things for no good reason, this rule says that behavior isn't acceptable. Courts expect cases to move along at a fair and steady pace, not get stuck because someone is playing games with the schedule.

Committee Notes

COMMENT

[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 4-3.1: Advocate - Meritorious Claims and Contentions Next → Rule 4-3.3: Advocate - Candor Toward the Tribunal