Also known as: lex lata · existing law
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A Latin maxim directing a court or lawyer to apply existing law as it stands rather than a proposed reform. The principle requires decisions to rest on the law currently in force and treats arguments for change as distinct from the governing rule itself.
Daniel Diaz filed a complaint alleging breach of a supply contract. His attorney certified under Rule 11 that the claim rested on settled precedent interpreting identical contract language. The court accepted the certification because the argument invoked only existing doctrine without proposing any modification.
Denise Donovan sought to defend a client charged with securities fraud by arguing that existing precedent should be narrowed. Her supervisor reminded her that Model Rule 3.1 permits only good-faith contentions grounded in current law unless a nonfrivolous extension is explicitly identified.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Doris Duffy served responses to document requests stating that no additional records existed after a reasonable search of active files. Counsel certified under Rule 26(g) that the position was consistent with existing case law on accessibility, without advancing any argument to alter that doctrine.
Demetrius Douglas challenged a state criminal procedure on the ground that it violated settled due-process principles announced in prior Supreme Court decisions. The court evaluated the claim solely against those existing precedents rather than inviting legislative-style reform.
Destiny Davis brought a wrongful-death action after her spouse died at sea. The court applied the existing maritime wrongful-death rule as articulated in prior decisions and declined to create a new cause of action beyond that settled framework.
Dakota Industries sued foreign insurers alleging a conspiracy affecting U.S. commerce. The court resolved the jurisdictional question by applying the existing effects test from established Supreme Court authority without proposing any alteration to that standard.
De lege lata requires application of the law as it currently exists. De lege ferenda refers to arguments about how the law should be changed. Courts and lawyers must keep the two distinct when presenting contentions.
Supporting sources
A lawyer violates the rules by asserting a position that lacks any basis in existing law and offers no good-faith argument for extension or modification. Model Rule 3.1 and Rule 11(b)(2) both enforce this limit.
No. The maxim permits a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, but the argument must be clearly identified as such rather than presented as settled doctrine.
…objectives of the codes which are authorized by the National Industrial Recovery Act. The codes may, indeed, cover conduct which existing law condemns, but they are not limited to conduct of that sort. The Government does not contend that the Act contemplates such a limitation. It would be opposed both to the declared purposes of…