Ind. Prof. Cond. Rule 3.1

Effective January 1, 2005

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein,

unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good

faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the

defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in

incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of

the case be established.

Comment

[1] The advocate has a duty not to abuse legal procedure. The law, both procedural and substantive, establishes the limits within which an advocate may proceed. However, the law is

not always clear and never is static. Accordingly, in determining the proper scope of

advocacy, account must be taken of the law's ambiguities and potential for change.

[2] The filing of an action or defense or similar action taken for a client is not frivolous merely

because the facts have not first been fully substantiated or because the lawyer expects to

develop vital evidence only by discovery. What is required of lawyers, however, is that they

inform themselves about the facts of their clients' cases and the applicable law and determ-

ine that they can make good faith arguments in support of their clients' positions. Such action

is not frivolous even though the lawyer believes that the client's position ultimately will not

prevail. The action is frivolous, however, if the lawyer is unable either to make a good faith

argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good faith

argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.

[3] The lawyer's obligations under this Rule are subordinate to federal or state constitutional

law that entitles a defendant in a criminal matter to the assistance of counsel in presenting a

claim or contention that otherwise would be prohibited by this Rule.