Rule Text (verbatim from The Florida Bar)
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.
Educational reference. This page summarizes a Florida Rule of Professional Conduct for educational purposes. The rule text and Comment are mirrored from the Florida Bar's official publication and are public domain. The plain-English summary and any commentary are the opinion of Phillips, Hunt & Walker and are general information only — not legal advice. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you believe a Florida lawyer has violated this rule, you can file a complaint with The Florida Bar at floridabar.org. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
What this rule means in plain English
A Florida lawyer cannot file claims, defenses, or arguments that have no good-faith basis in law or fact. Frivolous filings violate the rule and expose both the lawyer and the client to sanctions. The standard isn’t whether the case is a sure winner — many legitimate cases are uncertain — but whether a reasonable lawyer would view the position as supportable. Filing nuisance claims to harass the other side, or recycling already-rejected arguments, crosses the line.
Florida Bar Ethics Opinions interpreting this rule
- Opinion 81-9 (1981)
<p>A court-appointed defense attorney who files an appeal the lawyer believes is frivolous, but does so at the client's insistence and through approved procedure, is not committing an ethics violation. The court — not the lawyer — makes the ultimate call on whether to entertain a borderline appeal. The lawyer's job is to advocate within proper channels, not to gatekeep the client out of the system.</p>
Read on floridabar.org → - Opinion 67-27 (1967)
<p>A lawyer representing a judgment creditor cannot let the client conduct the actual examination of the judgment debtor at supplemental proceedings, even if the lawyer prepares the questions in advance. The line between supervision and unauthorized practice runs through who speaks on the record. Lawyer-as-coach plus client-as-mouthpiece crosses into UPL.</p>
Read on floridabar.org →
Comment (verbatim from The Florida Bar)
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.
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.
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 or
contention that otherwise would be prohibited by this rule.
Amended July 23, 1992, effective Jan. 1, 1993 (605 So.2d 252); amended
March 23, 2006, effective May 22, 2006 (933 So.2d 417).