Washington court cases already take time. Washington RPC 3.2 exists to prevent lawyers from making that problem worse. The rule is short but powerful: a lawyer must make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.
For clients, this is more than professional etiquette. Delays can affect money, parenting schedules, business operations, and even the ability to prove a case (witness memories fade; documents disappear). RPC 3.2 draws a clear ethical line between legitimate strategy and improper stalling.
What Washington RPC 3.2 Requires
RPC 3.2 states: “A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.”
“Reasonable efforts” does not mean “rush at all costs”
The rule does not require a lawyer to sacrifice outcomes for speed. The key phrase is “consistent with the interests of the client.” A lawyer can (and should) take the time needed to:
- investigate facts,
- evaluate settlement options,
- prepare witnesses,
- file necessary motions, and
- build a sound record.
What the rule targets is delay for delay’s sake—or delay used as a weapon.
Washington RPC 3.2 and Improper Delay Tactics
The comment to RPC 3.2 explains why this matters: dilatory practices bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Even if certain slow-walk tactics are sometimes “tolerated,” the rule says that tolerance is not a justification.
Delay for convenience is not the standard
The comment specifically warns it is not proper for a lawyer to routinely fail to expedite litigation solely for the convenience of the advocates. Put plainly: scheduling and workload realities happen, but a pattern of avoidable postponements—because it’s easier for the lawyers—is not what the system expects.
Delay to frustrate the other side crosses the line
The comment also notes that a failure to expedite is not reasonable if done to frustrate an opposing party’s attempt to obtain rightful redress or repose. This is a key client-facing takeaway: litigation should not be used as punishment through process.
How Courts and Bar Authorities Think About “Substantial Purpose”
RPC 3.2’s comment frames the real question like this: would a competent lawyer acting in good faith view the course of action as having some substantial purpose other than delay?
Examples of “substantial purpose” that are usually legitimate
While every case is different, actions commonly seen as having a substantial purpose include:
- requesting a continuance to secure a critical witness,
- seeking time to review newly produced discovery,
- filing a motion that narrows issues for trial,
- negotiating a protective order for sensitive records,
- pursuing settlement discussions that may resolve the case faster than trial.
“Financial benefit from delay” is not a legitimate client interest
The comment is explicit: realizing financial or other benefit from otherwise improper delay is not a legitimate interest of the client. In other words, billing more hours (or squeezing the other side economically) is not an ethical reason to slow a case down.
What This Means for Washington Clients
If you’re involved in a Washington lawsuit—civil, family, or criminal—RPC 3.2 supports a basic expectation: your lawyer should move your case forward responsibly and avoid tactics that exist only to stall.
If you suspect a case is being dragged out unnecessarily, it may be worth asking:
- What is the purpose of this continuance or delay?
- Does it improve our position with evidence, timing, or leverage grounded in the merits?
- Are we delaying because we must—or because someone benefits from slowing the process?
A good litigation plan balances preparation with momentum. RPC 3.2 is the ethical backstop that demands that balance.
Call to Action
Contact Blanford Law today at ken@blanfordlaw.com or 253-720-9304 for guidance on your legal matter.
Additional Resources
- RPC 1.9 Washington Duties to Former Clients — Explains when a lawyer may be restricted from taking a new matter because of duties owed to a former client.
https://blanfordlaw.com/rpc-1-9-washington-duties-former-clients/ - RPC 1.7 Conflict of Interest — Breaks down conflicts involving current representation and when informed consent may (or may not) allow a lawyer to proceed.
https://blanfordlaw.com/rpc-1-7-conflict-of-interest/ - RPC 1.8 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients — Covers specific conflict rules for current clients, including prohibited transactions and limits on certain arrangements.
https://blanfordlaw.com/rpc-1-8-conflict-of-interest-current-clients/ - Blewett Pass Injury Claim Guide — A practical overview of steps and considerations after an injury in the Blewett Pass area, including documentation and timing.
https://blanfordlaw.com/blewett-pass-injury-claim-guide/ - IRLJ 3.5 Written Statement — Summarizes how written statements may be used in limited jurisdiction proceedings and what to watch for procedurally.
https://blanfordlaw.com/irlj-3-5-written-statement/