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 to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client's cause, but also 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 determine 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 that otherwise would be prohibited by this Rule.

History Note:

Authority G.S. 84-23;

Eff. July 24, 1997;

Amended Eff. February 27, 2003.

Related Ethics Opinions

CPR 122

Adopted

CPR 321

Adopted

2003 Formal Ethics Opinion 12: Advising Insured and Insurance Company on Settlement Value of Case

Adopted
October 21, 2004

2006 Formal Ethics Opinion 9: Pursuing Frivolous Claim at the Direction of GAL for Plaintiff

Adopted
July 21, 2006

2008 Formal Ethics Opinion 3: Assisting a Pro Se Litigant

Adopted
January 23, 2009

2008 Formal Ethics Opinion 4: Use of Subpoena Power to Obtain Records

Adopted
July 18, 2008

2008 Formal Ethics Opinion 17: Filing a Notice of Appeal in a Court-Appointed Juvenile Case

Adopted
January 23, 2009

2009 Formal Ethics Opinion 5: Reporting Opposing Party's Citizenship Status to ICE

Adopted
January 22, 2009

2009 Formal Ethics Opinion 15: Dismissal of DWI Charge by Prosecutor When Insufficient Evidence Due to Suppression Order

Adopted
January 15, 2010

2011 Formal Ethics Opinion 3: Advising a Criminal Defendant Who is an Undocumented Alien

Adopted
April 22, 2011

2013 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 : Release/Dismissal Agreement Offered by Prosecutor to Convicted Person

Adopted
October 15, 2013

2016 Formal Ethics Opinion 2 : Duty of Defense Counsel Appointed after Defendant Files Pro Se Motion for Appropriate Relief

Adopted
July 22, 2016

2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1: Use of Artificial Intelligence in a Law Practice

Adopted
November 1, 2024