Also known as: MR 1.1 · Model Rules 1.1 · Rule 1.1 · competence · duty of competence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A professional conduct rule requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation demands the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation, including adequate factual investigation and staying current with relevant technology.
A law firm partner contributes to a city official's campaign shortly before the firm submits a proposal for a government contract. The firm wins the engagement. The contribution raises questions whether selection rested on merit rather than the donation, triggering scrutiny of whether the firm met its baseline duty to ensure competent handling of the resulting legal work.
A maintenance technician skips a required lockout before entering an active turbine nacelle. The monitor receives repeated alerts but delays review to avoid an output shutdown. When the monitor finally acts, injury has already occurred. The monitor's failure to apply available information and training in a timely manner illustrates a lapse in the competence required to prevent unreasonable risk of harm.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A trial judge repeatedly directs guilty verdicts in criminal cases, proceeds without defendants or counsel present, and fails to advise defendants of appeal rights. The pattern of fundamental legal mistakes, combined with chronic absenteeism, demonstrates gross incompetence that breaches the duty to perform judicial responsibilities with the knowledge and skill expected of the office.
A radiologist working an understaffed overnight shift omits the required double-check protocol on an urgent MRI. The omission stems from workload pressure and lack of preparation time. The resulting misreading delays a cancer diagnosis. The failure to exercise the skill and preparation a competent professional would recognize as necessary shows a breach of the competence standard.
A turbine monitor receives multiple automated alerts and camera feeds showing a trapped technician. Despite the clear opportunity to act, the monitor postpones review to meet output targets. The delay allows injury to occur. The monitor's choice not to use existing information and training with reasonable care demonstrates a competence failure even under operational pressure.
A driver who created an initial hazard later sees the plaintiff trapped but fails to use the remaining opportunity to avoid further harm. The driver possesses the information and means to act yet does nothing. The inaction constitutes a separate competence failure measured by the care a reasonable person in that position would exercise to prevent the known risk from materializing.
The rule requires thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation, including adequate factual investigation and the use of technology when relevant to competent service.
No. Model Rule 1.1 requires proper factual investigation, and advancing costs for medical diagnosis or expert consultation is permitted even though lawyers generally may not provide financial assistance to clients.
A defendant who fails to use reasonable care and competence to avoid harm when an opportunity exists can be found negligent even if the plaintiff was initially at fault, provided the other elements of the doctrine are met.
No. The hospital remains liable when it fails to select a competent contractor for work involving risk of physical harm, retains control over staffing, or gives negligent directions that compromise safety protocols.
…a threat to the mental or physical health of the patient," two other physicians "chosen because of their recognized professional competence have examined the patient and have concurred in writing," and the procedure "is performed in a hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals." The providing of…