North Carolina Administrative Code › Title 27 - STATE BAR › Chapter 02 - RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR › Section .0100 - CLIENT LAWYER RELATIONSHIP › Section 02 RULE 1.03 - DILIGENCE

Current through Register Vol. 39, No. 2, July 15, 2024
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 work load 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 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 . 27
				N.C.A.C. 1B, .0122 (providing for court appointment of a lawyer to inventory
				files and take other protective action to protect the interests of the clients
				of a lawyer who has disappeared or is deceased or disabled).
Distinguishing Professional Negligence
[6] Conduct that may constitute professional
				malpractice does not necessarily constitute a violation of the ethical duty to
				represent a client diligently. Generally speaking, a single instance of
				unaggravated negligence does not warrant discipline. For example, missing a
				statute of limitations may form the basis for a claim of professional
				malpractice. However, where the failure to file the complaint in a timely
				manner is due to inadvertence or a simple mistake such as mislaying the papers
				or miscalculating the date upon which the statute of limitations will run,
				absent some other aggravating factor, such an incident will not generally
				constitute a violation of this rule.
[7] Conduct warranting the imposition of
				professional discipline under the rule is characterized by the element of
				intent manifested when a lawyer knowingly or recklessly disregards his or her
				obligations. Breach of the duty of diligence sufficient to warrant professional
				discipline occurs when a lawyer consistently fails to carry out the obligations
				that the lawyer has assumed for his or her clients. A pattern of delay,
				procrastination, carelessness, and forgetfulness regarding client matters
				indicates a knowing or reckless disregard for the lawyer's professional duties.
				For example, a lawyer who habitually misses filing deadlines and court dates is
				not taking his or her professional responsibilities seriously. A pattern of
				negligent conduct is not excused by a burdensome case load or inadequate office
				procedures.
Authority
				  G.S.
				  84-23;
Adopted by the Supreme
				  Court July 24, 1997;
Amendments Approved by the Supreme Court:
				  March 1, 2003; September 28, 2017.