Rule 1.3. Diligence

« Rule 1.3. »

A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in

representing a client.

COMMENT

[1] A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite

opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and take

whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client’s

cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also act with commitment and

dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the

client’s behalf. A lawyer is not bound, however, to press for every

advantage that might be realized for a client. For example, a lawyer may

have authority to exercise professional discretion in determining the means

by which a matter should be pursued. See Rule 1.2. The lawyer’s duty to

act with reasonable diligence does not require the use of offensive tactics

or preclude the treating of all persons involved in the legal process with

courtesy and respect.

[2] A lawyer’s workload must be controlled so that each matter can be

handled competently.

[3] Perhaps no professional shortcoming is more widely resented than

procrastination. A client’s interests often can be adversely affected by the

passage of time or the change of conditions; in extreme instances, as when

a lawyer overlooks a statute of limitations, the client’s legal position may

be destroyed. Even when the client’s interests are not affected in

substance, however, unreasonable delay can cause a client needless

anxiety and undermine confidence in the lawyer’s trustworthiness. A

lawyer’s duty to act with reasonable promptness, however, does not

preclude the lawyer from agreeing to a reasonable request for a

postponement that will not prejudice the lawyer’s client.

[4] Unless the relationship is terminated as provided in Rule 1.16, a

lawyer should carry through to conclusion all matters undertaken for a

client. If a lawyer’s employment is limited to a specific matter, the

r’s duty to act with reasonable promptness, however, does not

preclude the lawyer from agreeing to a reasonable request for a

postponement that will not prejudice the lawyer’s client.

[4] Unless the relationship is terminated as provided in Rule 1.16, a

lawyer should carry through to conclusion all matters undertaken for a

client. If a lawyer’s employment is limited to a specific matter, the

relationship terminates when the matter has been resolved. If a lawyer has

served a client over a substantial period in a variety of matters, the client

sometimes may assume that the lawyer will continue to serve on a

continuing basis unless the lawyer gives notice of withdrawal. Doubt about

whether a client-lawyer relationship still exists should be clarified by the

lawyer, preferably in writing, so that the client will not mistakenly suppose

the lawyer is looking after the client’s affairs when the lawyer has ceased to

do so. For example, if a lawyer has handled a judicial or administrative

proceeding that produced a result adverse to the client and the lawyer and

the client have not agreed that the lawyer will handle the matter on appeal,

the lawyer must consult with the client about the possibility of appeal

before relinquishing responsibility for the matter. See Rule 1.4(a)(2).

Whether the lawyer is obligated to prosecute the appeal for the client

depends on the scope of the representation the lawyer has agreed to provide

to the client. See Rule 1.2.

[5] To prevent neglect of client matters in the event of a sole

practitioner’s death or disability, the duty of diligence may require that

each sole practitioner prepare a plan, in conformity with applicable rules,

that designates another competent lawyer to review client files, notify

each client of the lawyer’s death or disability, and determine whether there

is a need for immediate protective action. Cf

neglect of client matters in the event of a sole

practitioner’s death or disability, the duty of diligence may require that

each sole practitioner prepare a plan, in conformity with applicable rules,

that designates another competent lawyer to review client files, notify

each client of the lawyer’s death or disability, and determine whether there

is a need for immediate protective action. Cf. Rule 28 of the American Bar

association Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (providing

for court appointment of a lawyer to inventory files and take other

protective action in absence of a plan providing for another lawyer to

protect the interests of the clients of a deceased or disabled lawyer).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

Client relations.

— Diligence.

Sanctions.

— Disbarment.

— Reprimand.

Analysis

— Suspension.

Client relations.

— Diligence.

Failure to promptly comply with requests of the Court, such as to prepay

costs, is a violation of this Rule. In re Tos, 576 A.2d 607 (Del. 1990).

Failure either to file several dues collection cases, or keep client

informed of his progress in relation to these cases, violated this Rule and

Prof. Cond. Rule 1.4(a). In re McCann, 669 A.2d 49 (Del. 1995).

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 respond promptly to client’s

requests for information and by failing to promptly and properly

determine the status of client’s bankruptcy petition so that the client was

subjected to sanctions. In re Benge, 754 A.2d 871 (Del. 2000).

Attorney violated Law. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 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)

ankruptcy petition so that the client was

subjected to sanctions. In re Benge, 754 A.2d 871 (Del. 2000).

Attorney violated Law. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 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).

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 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).

Attorney failed to act with reasonable diligence in violation of Law.

Prof. Conduct R. 1.3, where the attorney admitted conducting a real estate

settlement while under the influence of alcohol. In re Davis, 43 A.3d 856

(Del. 2012)

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).

Attorney failed to act with reasonable diligence in violation of Law.

Prof. Conduct R. 1.3, where the attorney admitted conducting a real estate

settlement while under the influence of alcohol. In re Davis, 43 A.3d 856

(Del. 2012).

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. 1.3, with respect to the

delay in recording a deed, where the attorney was faced with the choice of

preparing the deed in compliance with condominium council requirements

or not settling on the purchase at all; the attorney acted in what was

thought to be the best interests of the client. In re Sisk, 54 A.3d 257 (Del.

2012).

Lawyer violated Law. Prof. Conduct R. 1.3 because the lawyer did not

diligently pursue a client’s claims or timely file a complaint. In re Wilks,

99 A.3d 228 (Del. 2014).

Sanctions.

— Disbarment.

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).

— Reprimand.

Where attorney violated Rule 1.2(a), Rule 1.3, Rule 1.4(a) and (b), Rule

1.15(a) and (d), Rule 1.16(b) and (d), and Rule 3.4 (c), attorney agreed to

pay all the costs of the disciplinary proceedings, the costs of the

investigatory audits performed by the Lawyers’ Fund for Client

caused over $ 500,000 in damages to clients, was disbarred.

In re Spiller, 788 A.2d 114 (Del. 2001).

— Reprimand.

Where attorney violated Rule 1.2(a), Rule 1.3, Rule 1.4(a) and (b), Rule

1.15(a) and (d), Rule 1.16(b) and (d), and Rule 3.4 (c), attorney agreed to

pay all the costs of the disciplinary proceedings, the costs of the

investigatory audits performed by the Lawyers’ Fund for Client

Protection, the restitution noted in the parties stipulation, and consented to

the imposition of a public reprimand with a public four-year probation

with conditions. In re Solomon, 745 A.2d 874 (Del. 1999).

When an attorney handling 2 estates failed to act with reasonable

diligence and promptness in probating the estates, the attorney violated

Law. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3; attorney was publicly reprimanded, prevented

from representing a personal representative or serving as 1, and required

to cooperate and pay costs. In re Wilson, 886 A.2d 1279 (Del. 2005).

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.

Suspension for 6 months and 1 day was warranted where an attorney:

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.

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 1.4