As young lawyers, we are often expected to push our comfort zone, which can mean taking on new matters to gain experience and advance in our profession. We all have our “firsts”– our first business transaction, our first trial, our first motions hearing and our first administrative proceeding, to name a few.

So, where, as young lawyers, do we draw the line between pushing our comfort zone to gain valuable experience versus adhering to our professional responsibilities to our clients to provide competent representation?

I was confronted with this issue recently. At 4:30 p.m., a colleague requested I cover a criminal matter the following morning. My professional experience is in civil litigation, and my gut reaction was to say no. The attorney assured me this was a simple proceeding and I was more than competent to handle it. He explained that, due to unforeseeable circumstances, I was the only one in our firm available to handle the matter.

Nonetheless, I could not shake that uncomfortable feeling I was not competent, given that I had very little experience in criminal matters. Moreover, I felt I had inadequate time to perform the necessary study to become competent. If I had a day to prepare, I would have felt more comfortable in my ability to competently represent the client. Although my ego protested, I spoke openly and honestly with my colleague about my discomfort and concerns.

The first entry in the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct requires lawyers to be competent. The comments clarify that a newly admitted lawyer can be as competent as a veteran practitioner and that a lawyer can provide adequate representation in a wholly novel field through necessary study. The comments permit representation in a matter in which a lawyer does not have the skill ordinarily required in an emergency.

My struggle worsened: was this an emergency? Certainly my representation would be better than none, right?

Thankfully, the issue was resolved when my colleague was able to reach another colleague who had criminal experience. The proceeding ultimately turned out to be more complicated than expected, and I was glad an experienced criminal attorney was there to handle it.

There is not a bright line rule as to how to handle this issue. Even the rule is somewhat vague as to exactly what the requirement that we be “competent” really means and entails. Perhaps the bright line rule is simply that we have to trust our instincts. If we are uncomfortable with a matter and do not believe we will be able to engage in necessary study in order to provide competent representation, the best course of action is undoubtedly to decline the matter.

We cannot rely on the fact that another attorney thinks we are competent. We all took an oath to uphold the Rules of Professional Conduct and that oath requires us to make professional judgment calls every day. Unfortunately, those judgment calls may sometimes come down to just a gut check.

Powered by Bookmarkify™