Model Rule 1.3: Diligence
Rule 1.3 requires a lawyer to pursue a client's matter with commitment and to avoid needless delay. It's about work ethic and follow-through, not legal skill (that's Rule 1.1). Essentially, once a lawyer takes on representation, they must actually push it forward diligently until it's resolved or properly terminated.
When it applies
This comes up constantly in practice through missed deadlines, statute of limitations lapses, unreturned calls combined with inaction, and file neglect that leads to bar discipline. On the MPRE, it's tested through fact patterns involving procrastination, missed filings, or a lawyer who takes a case and then does nothing for months.
What the rule requires
- Act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
- Carry matters through to completion, not abandon them partway.
- Avoid procrastination and unreasonable delay, even if the client has not yet suffered any harm.
- Control workload so that each matter receives adequate attention.
- Follow through on commitments made to the client regarding the representation.
- Continue representation until properly terminated under Rule 1.16, not simply let it lapse.
Exceptions
- A lawyer is not required to act with the 'zeal' of an advocate in ways that violate other rules or law.
- Reasonable diligence does not mean the lawyer must be immediately available at every moment; it is judged by a standard of reasonableness, not perfection.
How the MPRE tests Model Rule 1.3
- Students often confuse diligence (effort/follow-through) with competence under Rule 1.1 (skill/knowledge); a missed deadline is a diligence problem even if the lawyer knew the law perfectly.
- A single missed call is not necessarily a violation, but neither a pattern of neglect nor client harm is required; one unreasonable failure to act, such as a single missed filing deadline, can violate Rule 1.3. (Failing to return calls is primarily analyzed under Rule 1.4.)
- Questions may test whether inaction alone, without actual client harm, still counts as a violation. It can, because actual harm is not an element of Rule 1.3; unreasonable delay alone can violate the rule, even when it only causes the client needless anxiety.
- Test-takers sometimes assume withdrawal fixes neglect; abandoning a matter without following Rule 1.16's withdrawal procedures is itself a violation, layered onto any 1.3 problem.
Example
A lawyer is retained to file a personal injury suit with a two-year limitations period, puts the file in a drawer, and forgets about it until the period expires, barring the claim entirely. This is a clear violation of Rule 1.3, because the lawyer failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, resulting in the client losing the claim.
Related rules
A plain-English summary of the ABA Model Rule, not the rule text. Your jurisdiction's version of the rule controls in practice.