# Del. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.1: Rule 1.1. Competence

> Delaware · Court rules · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_DE_DELRPC_R1_1

## Section

- **Citation:** Del. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.1
- **Heading:** Rule 1.1. Competence
- **Jurisdiction:** Delaware
- **Kind:** Court rules
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Delaware Court Rules / Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct / Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct with comments / Del. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.1

## Text

« Rule 1.1. »
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent
representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

COMMENT

[1] Legal knowledge and skill. — In determining whether a lawyer
employs the requisite knowledge and skill in a particular matter, relevant
factors include the relative complexity and specialized nature of the matter,
the lawyer’s general experience, the lawyer’s training and experience in
the field in question, the preparation and study the lawyer is able to give
the matter and whether it is feasible to refer the matter to, or associate or
consult with, a lawyer of established competence in the field in question.
In many instances, the required proficiency is that of a general practitioner.
Expertise in a particular field of law may be required in some
circumstances.
[2] A lawyer need not necessarily have special training or prior
experience to handle legal problems of a type with which the lawyer is
unfamiliar. A newly admitted lawyer can be as competent as a practitioner
with long experience. Some important legal skills, such as the analysis of
precedent, the evaluation of evidence and legal drafting, are required in all
legal problems. Perhaps the most fundamental legal skill consists of
determining what kind of legal problems a situation may involve, a skill
that necessarily transcends any particular specialized knowledge. A lawyer
can provide adequate representation in a wholly novel field through
necessary study. Competent representation can also be provided through
the association of a lawyer of established competence in the field in
question.
[3] In an emergency a lawyer may give advice or assistance in a matter
in which the lawyer does not have the skill ordinarily required where
referral to or consultation or association with another lawyer would be
impractical. Even in an emergency, however, assistance should be limited
an also be provided through
the association of a lawyer of established competence in the field in
question.
[3] In an emergency a lawyer may give advice or assistance in a matter
in which the lawyer does not have the skill ordinarily required where
referral to or consultation or association with another lawyer would be
impractical. Even in an emergency, however, assistance should be limited

to that reasonably necessary in the circumstances, for ill-considered action
under emergency conditions can jeopardize the client’s interest.
[4] A lawyer may accept representation where the requisite level of
competence can be achieved by reasonable preparation. This applies as
well to a lawyer who is appointed as counsel for an unrepresented person.
See also Rule 6.2.
[5] Thoroughness and preparation. — Competent handling of a
particular matter includes inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal
elements of the problem, and use of methods and procedures meeting the
standards of competent practitioners. It also includes adequate
preparation. The required attention and preparation are determined in part
by what is at stake; major litigation and complex transactions ordinarily
require more extensive treatment than matters of lesser complexity and
consequence. An agreement between the lawyer and the client regarding
the scope of the representation may limit the matters for which the lawyer
is responsible. See Rule 1.2(c).
[6] Retaining or contracting with other lawyers. — Before a lawyer
retains or contracts with other lawyers outside the lawyer’s own firm to
provide or assist in the provision of legal services to a client, the lawyer
should ordinarily obtain informed consent from the client and must
reasonably believe that the other lawyers’ services will contribute to the
competent and ethical representation of the client. See also Rules 1.2
(allocation of authority), 1.4 (communication with client), 1.5(e) (fee
sharing), 1.6 (confidentiality), and 5.5(a) (unauthorized practice of law)
al services to a client, the lawyer
should ordinarily obtain informed consent from the client and must
reasonably believe that the other lawyers’ services will contribute to the
competent and ethical representation of the client. See also Rules 1.2
(allocation of authority), 1.4 (communication with client), 1.5(e) (fee
sharing), 1.6 (confidentiality), and 5.5(a) (unauthorized practice of law).
The reasonableness of the decision to retain or contract with other lawyers
outside the lawyer’s own firm will depend upon the circumstances,
including the education, experience and reputation of the nonfirm lawyers;
the nature of the services assigned to the nonfirm lawyers; and the legal
protections, professional conduct rules, and ethical environments of the
jurisdictions in which the services will be performed, particularly relating
to confidential information.
[7] When lawyers from more than one law firm are providing legal
services to the client on a particular matter, the lawyers ordinarily should
consult with each other and the client about the scope of their respective
representations and the allocation of responsibility among them. See Rule

1.2. When making allocations of responsibility in a matter pending before
a tribunal, lawyers and parties may have additional obligations that are a
matter of law beyond the scope of these Rules.
[8] Maintaining competence. — To maintain the requisite knowledge
and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its
practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant
technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all
continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.

NOTES TO DECISIONS
he scope of these Rules.
[8] Maintaining competence. — To maintain the requisite knowledge
and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its
practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant
technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all
continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

Client relations.
— Conflicts of interest.
— Effective representation.
Professional conduct.
— Candor toward the tribunal.
Sanctions.
— Reprimand.
— Suspension.
Client relations.
— Conflicts of interest.
Analysis
Attorney failed to provide competent representation where the attorney
failed to check files to determine if a conflict of interest existed as a result
of the attorney’s representation of the client’s ex-spouse against the client
in a former proceeding involving the same issues. In re Mekler, 689 A.2d
1171 (Del. 1996).
Attorney was suspended from the practice of law for 3 months, followed
by a 1-year period of probation, for violating Law. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1,
1.4(b), 1.7, and 1.16(a) (Interpretative Guideline Re: Residential real estate
transactions); the attorney failed to obtain the clients’ consent to a conflict
of interest that arose when the attorney represented both the

borrower and the lender in a loan transaction, and failed to inform the
clients of their 3-day right to rescind. In re Katz, 981 A.2d 1133 (Del.
2009).
Where an attorney committed violations of Law. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1,
1.4(b), and 1.16 during the course of 10 closings for a private money
lender, a public reprimand was deemed the appropriate sanction; the
attorney had ethical duties to disclose to the borrowers a conflict of interest
and the fact that the loan documents were inadequate, even though the
attorney did not represent them, as they had no attorneys. In re Goldstein,
990 A.2d 404 (Del. 2010).
— Effective representation
g the course of 10 closings for a private money
lender, a public reprimand was deemed the appropriate sanction; the
attorney had ethical duties to disclose to the borrowers a conflict of interest
and the fact that the loan documents were inadequate, even though the
attorney did not represent them, as they had no attorneys. In re Goldstein,
990 A.2d 404 (Del. 2010).
— Effective representation.
Failure to promptly comply with court rules, even after notification
from the court, is a violation of this Rule. In re Tos, 576 A.2d 607 (Del.
1990).
Failure to file an opening brief on behalf of a client, resulting in the
dismissal of the client’s appeal, was a violation of this rule. In re Sullivan,
727 A.2d 832 (Del. 1999).
Attorney violated this rule by failing to provide competent
representation to client where attorney had the requisite legal knowledge
and skills but did not exercise the thoroughness and preparation reasonably
necessary to properly represent client in bankruptcy action. In re Benge,
754 A.2d 871 (Del. 2000).
Lawyer who violated numerous professional duties in real estate
practice, and caused over $ 500,000 in damages to clients, was disbarred.
In re Spiller, 788 A.2d 114 (Del. 2001).
Finding that attorney violated Law. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1 was warranted
where the attorney failed to probate the estate in a timely manner. In re
Wilson, 900 A.2d 102 (Del. 2006).
Attorney violated Law. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1 by: (1) failing to conduct an
adequate investigation; and (2) failing to prepare and file a motion for
reduction of sentence upon which a Superior Court might have relied to
reduce the client’s sentence. In re Pankowski, 947 A.2d 1122 (Del. 2007).
the attorney failed to probate the estate in a timely manner. In re
Wilson, 900 A.2d 102 (Del. 2006).
Attorney violated Law. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1 by: (1) failing to conduct an
adequate investigation; and (2) failing to prepare and file a motion for
reduction of sentence upon which a Superior Court might have relied to
reduce the client’s sentence. In re Pankowski, 947 A.2d 1122 (Del. 2007).

Attorney whose multiple federal actions for assorted clients were
dismissed due to failure to respond to dismissal or summary judgment
motions violated Law. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 8.4,
warranting a 2-year suspension from the practice of law, with conditions
where: (1) the attorney had an unblemished record; (2) the attorney had
undergone 2 eye surgeries; (3) the attorney had suffered the loss of a half-
sibling; but (4) the conduct was deemed “knowing” and evidenced
engagement in a pattern of misconduct. In re Feuerhake, 998 A.2d 850
(Del. 2010).
Where an attorney engaged in lateness or failure to appear at scheduled
court appearances, tardy requests for postponements, failure to comply
with court-imposed deadlines, “sloppy work and complete disregard to the
Court’s rules and procedure” and wasted judicial resources in 3 Delaware
Courts, in addition to violating the duty of candor to the Supreme Court of
Delaware, the attorney violated Law Prof. Conduct R. 1.1, 1.3, 3.3, 3.4 and
8.4. In re: Poliquin, 49 A.3d 1115 (Del. 2012).
Attorney did not violate Law. Prof. Conduct R. 1.1 by failing to take
time to explain various forms of joint ownership available and their legal
implications or by failing to attend a settlement. In re Sisk, 54 A.3d 257
(Del. 2012).
Lawyer violated Law. Prof. Conduct R. 1.1 because the lawyer did not
file a complaint or secure a tolling agreement to preserve the statute of
limitations. In re Wilks, 99 A.3d 228 (Del. 2014).
Professional conduct.
— Candor toward the tribunal
n various forms of joint ownership available and their legal
implications or by failing to attend a settlement. In re Sisk, 54 A.3d 257
(Del. 2012).
Lawyer violated Law. Prof. Conduct R. 1.1 because the lawyer did not
file a complaint or secure a tolling agreement to preserve the statute of
limitations. In re Wilks, 99 A.3d 228 (Del. 2014).
Professional conduct.
— Candor toward the tribunal.
Attorney’s misrepresentation to a Family Court that a client was not in
arrears with regard to alimony and had paid the debt in full was
determined to have been an act of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation in violation of Law. Prof. Conduct R. 8.4(c) and (d), a
failure to provide competent representation to the client, in violation of
Law. Prof. Conduct R. 1.1, and a failure to explain a matter to the extent
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions, in
violation of Law. Prof. Conduct R. 1.4(b); the misrepresentation was found
to have been knowingly made, but the recommended suspension of 2 years

was reduced to 6 months, because mitigating circumstances were found in
the
nature
of the
attorney
providing
the
Family
Court with
correspondence, which would have permitted the Family Court and the
adverse party an opportunity to verify the debt. In re Chasanov, 869 A.2d
327 (Del. 2005).
Sanctions.
— Reprimand.
Because an attorney neglected client’s matters, failed to promptly
disburse client funds, and failed to cooperate with disciplinary authorities,
the attorney violated Law. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), (4), 1.15(d),
and 8.1(b); accordingly, the attorney was publicly reprimanded and placed
on probation for 18 months with the imposition of certain conditions. In re
Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Del., 999 A.2d 853 (Del.
2010).
Attorney was publicly reprimanded and placed on conditional probation
for violating Law. Prof. Conduct R
violated Law. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), (4), 1.15(d),
and 8.1(b); accordingly, the attorney was publicly reprimanded and placed
on probation for 18 months with the imposition of certain conditions. In re
Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Del., 999 A.2d 853 (Del.
2010).
Attorney was publicly reprimanded and placed on conditional probation
for violating Law. Prof. Conduct R. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), (4), 1.15(b), and
8.1(b) where the attorney: (1) failed to timely distribute settlement funds;
(2) failed to communicate with a personal injury client; and (3) failed to
keep the Office of Disciplinary Counsel informed of changes. In re Siegel,
47 A.3d 523 (Del. 2012).
— Suspension.
Attorney, who was on probation for previous violations of the Rules of
Professional Conduct and who violated Law. Prof. Conduct R. 1.1, 1.2(a),
1.4(a), 1.15(a), 8.1, 8.1(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d), and Law. Disc. P. R. 7(c),
was suspended from the practice of law in Delaware for 3 years after the
Board on Professional Responsibility found that the attorney’s problems
appeared to be getting worse and included: co-mingling client trust funds;
inadequate bookkeeping and safeguarding of client funds; inadequate
maintenance of books and records; knowingly making false statements of
material fact to the ODC; false representations in Certificates of
Compliance for 3 years; and failure to file corporate tax returns for 3
years. In re Becker, 947 A.2d 1120 (Del. 2008).
Suspension for 6 months and 1 day was warranted where an attorney:
inadequate bookkeeping and safeguarding of client funds; inadequate
maintenance of books and records; knowingly making false statements of
material fact to the ODC; false representations in Certificates of
Compliance for 3 years; and failure to file corporate tax returns for 3
years. In re Becker, 947 A.2d 1120 (Del. 2008).
Suspension for 6 months and 1 day was warranted where an attorney:
(1) violated Law Prof. Conduct R. 1.1, 1.3, 3.3, 3.4 and 8.4; (2) had a

record of 2 prior private admonitions; (3) engaged in a pattern of
misconduct consisting of multiple offenses; (4) suffered from personal or
emotional problems; (5) cooperated with the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel in connection with the hearing; (6) was generally of good
character, as evidenced by willingness to represent those who might not
otherwise have had representation; and (7) exhibited remorse. In re:
Poliquin, 49 A.3d 1115 (Del. 2012).
Attorney who committed numerous ethical violations, including
neglecting multiple client matters, making misrepresentations to the court
and failing to properly safeguard clients’ funds, was suspended for 18
months, based on a determination that the mitigating factors significantly
outweighed the aggravating factors. In re Carucci, 132 A.3d 1161 (Del.
2016).

Del. Rules of Prof'l Conduct Rule 1.2

## Nearby sections

- [Del. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.0 Rule 1.0. Terminology](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_DE_DELRPC_R1_0.md)
- [Del. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.1 Rule 1.1. Competence](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_DE_DELRPC_R1_1.md)
- [Del. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.2 Rule 1.2. Scope of representation](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_DE_DELRPC_R1_2.md)
- [Del. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.3 Rule 1.3. Diligence](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_DE_DELRPC_R1_3.md)
- [Del. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.4 Rule 1.4. Communication](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_DE_DELRPC_R1_4.md)
- [Del. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.5 Rule 1.5. Fees](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_DE_DELRPC_R1_5.md)
- [Del. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.6 Rule 1.6. Confidentiality of information](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_DE_DELRPC_R1_6.md)
- [Del. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.7 Rule 1.7. In addition, such a lawyer may be subject to statutes and government regulations regarding conflict of interest. Such statutes and regulations may circumscribe the extent to which the government agency](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_DE_DELRPC_R1_7.md)
- [Del. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.8 Rule 1.8. For former client conflicts of interest, see Rule 1.9. For conflicts of interest involving prospective clients, see Rule 1.18. For definitions of](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_DE_DELRPC_R1_8.md)
- [Del. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.9 Rule 1.9. Duties to former clients](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_DE_DELRPC_R1_9.md)
- [Del. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.10 Rule 1.10. Imputation of conflicts of interest: General rule](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_DE_DELRPC_R1_10.md)
- [Del. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.11 Rule 1.11. Special conflicts of interest for former and current government officers and employees.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_DE_DELRPC_R1_11.md)
- [Del. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.12 Rule 1.12. Former judge, arbitrator, mediator or other third-party neutral.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_DE_DELRPC_R1_12.md)
- [Del. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.13 Rule 1.13. Organization as client](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_DE_DELRPC_R1_13.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_DE_DELRPC_R1_1. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.