Colo. RPC 3.2

History

Source: Entire Appendix repealed and readopted April 12, 2007, effective January 1, 2008. COMMENT [1] Dilatory practices bring the administra- tion 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 pur- pose other than delay. Realizing financial or other benefit from otherwise improper delay in litigation is not a legitimate interest of the client. ANNOTATION Law reviews. For article, ‘‘Enforcing Civil- ity: The Rules of Professional Conduct in De- position Settings’’, see 33 Colo. Law. 75 (Mar. 2004). Annotator’s note. Rule 3.2 is similar to Rule 3.2 as it existed prior to the 2007 repeal and readoption of the Colorado rules of professional conduct. Relevant cases construing that provi- sion have been included in the annotations to this rule. Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules is sufficient to justify suspension. People v. Robinson, 853 P.2d 1145 (Colo. 1993); People v. Barr, 855 P.2d 1386 (Colo. 1993); People v. Maynard, 238 P.3d 672 (Colo. O.P .D.J. 2009); People v. Staab, 287 P.3d 122 (Colo. O.P .D.J. 2012); People v. Al-Haqq, 470 P.3d 885 (Colo. O.P .D.J. 2016). Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules is sufficient to justify disbarment. People v. Keil, 470 P.3d 872 (Colo. O.P .D.J. 2016).