Home › Pennsylvania › Rules of Professional Conduct › Rule 3.2

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

Pa. R.P.C. 3.2

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

Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation

Chapter 81: 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.

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 make a real effort to move a case along instead of dragging it out. This means avoiding unnecessary delays like asking for extra time when it isn't needed, filing pointless paperwork, or stalling just to wear down the other side.

That said, this doesn't mean a lawyer has to rush a case in a way that hurts their own client. The rule is about balance. Lawyers can still take the time needed to prepare a strong case, but they shouldn't cause delays just for the sake of delay, to run up legal costs, or to pressure the other person into giving up.

If a lawyer is dragging out a case for no good reason, a judge can step in. Courts don't like it when lawyers waste time or use delay as a tactic to gain an unfair advantage. This rule exists to keep the legal system moving so cases get resolved fairly and without needless waiting.

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