‼️
Prof Responsibility • Diligence
PR#053
Legal Definition
The duty of diligence is the duty to diligently, promptly and zealously pursue your case to completion.
Plain English Explanation
The duty of diligence is all about lawyers giving their full effort and attention to your case, from beginning to end. Think of it like a marathon runner who needs to keep pushing forward, maintaining their pace and focus, all the way to the finish line. They can't get distract half-way and decide to take a nap. They need to finish strong across te finish line.
In other words, when a lawyer takes on your case, they're making a promise to see it through. They can't just work on it when they feel like it or let it sit on the back burner. Instead, they need to be actively moving your case forward at all times. This means meeting deadlines, responding to messages and requests promptly, and always looking for ways to advance your interests.
The "zealously" part of this duty means that your lawyer should be passionate and committed to your cause. They should be your advocate, fighting for your rights and interests with energy and determination. It's not enough for them to just go through the motions - they need to truly invest themselves in achieving the best possible outcome for you.
In other words, when a lawyer takes on your case, they're making a promise to see it through. They can't just work on it when they feel like it or let it sit on the back burner. Instead, they need to be actively moving your case forward at all times. This means meeting deadlines, responding to messages and requests promptly, and always looking for ways to advance your interests.
The "zealously" part of this duty means that your lawyer should be passionate and committed to your cause. They should be your advocate, fighting for your rights and interests with energy and determination. It's not enough for them to just go through the motions - they need to truly invest themselves in achieving the best possible outcome for you.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob is representing Sam in a personal injury lawsuit. Bob files the initial complaint promptly but then fails to respond to discovery requests from the opposing party for several months, despite multiple reminders. As a result, the court imposes sanctions on Sam and limits the evidence that can be presented at trial. Result: Bob has likely violated his duty of diligence. By failing to promptly respond to discovery requests, Bob did not pursue Sam's case with the required diligence and timeliness, directly harming Sam's interests in the process.
Hypo 2: Bob is representing Sam in a child custody case. Bob consistently meets all court deadlines, promptly responds to communications from both Sam and the opposing counsel, and actively seeks opportunities to negotiate a favorable arrangement for Sam. Even when faced with setbacks, Bob continues to explore all available legal options to support Sam's position. Result: Bob has likely fulfilled his duty of diligence. He has pursued Sam's case promptly and zealously, demonstrating consistent effort and timely action throughout the legal process.
Hypo 3: Bob is representing Sam in a complex corporate litigation matter. Bob works diligently on the case, but due to its complexity, he realizes that certain aspects require expertise he doesn't possess. Bob promptly informs Sam of this issue and, with Sam's approval, brings in a specialist to assist with those aspects of the case. Result: Bob has likely fulfilled his duty of diligence. Recognizing his limitations and taking prompt action to ensure the case is handled competently demonstrates Bob's commitment to zealously pursuing Sam's interests.
Hypo 4: Bob is representing Sam in a civil rights case. Bob is passionate about the cause and works tirelessly on the case, sometimes to the point of neglecting his other clients. He files numerous motions, many of which are unnecessary or premature, and bombards the opposing counsel with daily emails demanding immediate responses. Result: While Bob is certainly zealous, he may be crossing the line from diligence into overzealousness. The duty of diligence requires pursuing a case promptly and zealously, but it doesn't justify neglecting other professional responsibilities or engaging in excessive or counterproductive actions. Bob's behavior could potentially violate other ethical rules (like those owed to the court, which we talk about in other cards) while attempting to fulfill his duty of diligence.
Hypo 2: Bob is representing Sam in a child custody case. Bob consistently meets all court deadlines, promptly responds to communications from both Sam and the opposing counsel, and actively seeks opportunities to negotiate a favorable arrangement for Sam. Even when faced with setbacks, Bob continues to explore all available legal options to support Sam's position. Result: Bob has likely fulfilled his duty of diligence. He has pursued Sam's case promptly and zealously, demonstrating consistent effort and timely action throughout the legal process.
Hypo 3: Bob is representing Sam in a complex corporate litigation matter. Bob works diligently on the case, but due to its complexity, he realizes that certain aspects require expertise he doesn't possess. Bob promptly informs Sam of this issue and, with Sam's approval, brings in a specialist to assist with those aspects of the case. Result: Bob has likely fulfilled his duty of diligence. Recognizing his limitations and taking prompt action to ensure the case is handled competently demonstrates Bob's commitment to zealously pursuing Sam's interests.
Hypo 4: Bob is representing Sam in a civil rights case. Bob is passionate about the cause and works tirelessly on the case, sometimes to the point of neglecting his other clients. He files numerous motions, many of which are unnecessary or premature, and bombards the opposing counsel with daily emails demanding immediate responses. Result: While Bob is certainly zealous, he may be crossing the line from diligence into overzealousness. The duty of diligence requires pursuing a case promptly and zealously, but it doesn't justify neglecting other professional responsibilities or engaging in excessive or counterproductive actions. Bob's behavior could potentially violate other ethical rules (like those owed to the court, which we talk about in other cards) while attempting to fulfill his duty of diligence.
Visual Aids
