Competence, Diligence, and Communication
This domain tests whether you can spot a competence, diligence, or communication failure, name the rule, and identify the remedy. Discipline does not require a bad outcome; a neglected docketed deadline is enough.
Competence: Rule 1.1
Competence means legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. A lawyer may accept an unfamiliar matter by studying the law or associating with a competent lawyer, but must be competent by the time performance is required. Comment 8 adds the duty to keep abreast of changes in the law and to understand the benefits and risks of relevant technology. In an emergency, a lawyer may give advice in an unfamiliar area when referral is impractical.
Diligence: Rule 1.3
Diligence means reasonable promptness and no neglect. It underlies calendar and docket systems, coverage during vacation, second-chairing, and monitoring delegated work. Chronic overcommitment is not a defense; the lawyer must decline the matter or withdraw under Rule 1.16(a)(1) when competence is lacking.
Communication: Rule 1.4
The lawyer must promptly inform the client of significant developments, reasonably consult about the means of achieving the client's objectives, keep the client reasonably informed, promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and explain matters enough to permit informed decisions. A client should not have to ask twice; unreturned calls about a dispositive motion are a Rule 1.4 problem even when the legal work is excellent.
Worked example
An associate accepts an employment discrimination case with a 300-day administrative deadline, mis-dockets the date, and the charge is dismissed as untimely. The associate violated Rule 1.1 (thoroughness and preparation), Rule 1.3 (missed deadline), and Rule 1.4 (failure to keep the client informed about a critical date). The associate must promptly tell the client, explain possible tolling or alternative remedies, notify the firm's malpractice insurer, and take no step to conceal the error. Withdrawing to hide the mistake would itself be misconduct.
Traps
- Treating 'I was too busy' or 'the paralegal calendared it' as a defense.
- Measuring competence subjectively; the standard is what a competent lawyer would do.
- Assuming a good result cures poor communication.
- Forgetting that Rule 1.4 requires explaining consequences, not merely forwarding documents.
- Confusing malpractice, which is civil liability and can exist without a rule violation, with discipline, which requires a violation.