The number three seems to have extraordinary power, whether in art, where the “rule of thirds” creates visual harmony—the eye does love an odd number—or in structures, where triangles provide stability. The legal profession has its own “power of three” in the form of zealous advocacy, professionalism, and civility. Like the three poles supporting a tripod, each principle is essential in defining an attorney’s highest duty: to act in the client’s best interests while maintaining the profession's integrity.
The first, the often-maligned concept of “zealous advocacy,” rests on the belief that truth is best revealed when two dedicated advocates argue opposing sides. This is distinct from European courts, particularly those following civil-law traditions, where the court’s active role in fact-finding is prioritized over the adversarial contest between parties.
However, advocacy is only valuable when it serves the truth, so zealous advocacy is limited to conduct that promotes fact-finding. To keep advocacy in line, the rules of professional conduct guide lawyers to behaviors that reveal rather than obscure the truth. In this way, they act as a check against a “win at all costs” mindset and reinforce that advocacy should not compromise integrity. Civility also plays a key role, acting as a brake on zealous advocacy that goes too far. These three concepts uphold a balanced approach to justice, keeping advocacy aligned with truth-seeking.
Throughout much of the 20th century, the principle of zealous advocacy was a core part of professional standards for lawyers. This changed when the American Bar Association released its Model Rules of Professional Conduct in 1983. These rules omitted direct references to zealous advocacy, reserving the use of the term “zeal” for the preamble and comments to the rules. Most state bars followed this lead in amending their own rules.
In this limited form, the concept of “zealous advocacy” is refined to focus on client-centered and respectful advocacy. The commentary to Model Rule 1.3 clarifies that zeal should operate within ethical boundaries, reminding lawyers that diligent representation doesn’t require “offensive tactics” and encourages treating everyone involved in the legal process with “courtesy and respect.” These comments make it clear that zealous advocacy is about responsible and effective representation, not aggression for its own sake.
Although related, civility and professionalism are distinct, and each is necessary. Civility cannot be reduced to written rules, because its concerns are situational and directly tied to specific interactions. It requires respect, patience, and restraint even under pressure, but the conduct these require may vary with the situation. Professionalism goes beyond individual interactions and encompasses a lawyer’s approach to practice, obligations to the justice system, and the ethical standards to be upheld in all aspects of their work. A lawyer can be civil in a particular case without demonstrating overall professionalism, and vice versa. Professionalism asks more of attorneys than civility alone: It includes a dedication to competence, integrity, and ethical decision-making that extends beyond individual interactions and reflects a lawyer’s commitment to the justice system.
Civility in the legal profession requires lawyers to show respect toward opposing counsel, opposing clients, and the court. The ABA’s rules and opinions clarify that an attorney’s responsibility to their client does not excuse incivility, but there is more to civility than good manners. Hostile, rude, and bullying behavior is just lousy advocacy and is often an effort to cover up a lack of preparation or competence. Judges and juries must be persuaded, and while people may fear a bully, they will never respect the bully. True advocacy is strengthened, not weakened, by civility. Civil discourse thus serves as a powerful ally to zealous advocacy, balancing aggression with respect.
Civility is an element of genuinely persuasive advocacy, but professionalism defines the boundaries of that advocacy, encapsulating an attorney’s duty to act in a way that reflects integrity, fairness, and commitment to justice. ABA Model Rule 3.4, for example, instructs lawyers to be fair to opposing parties, while Rule 4.4 calls for respect toward third parties. Professionalism provides a broader ethical context within which zealous advocacy must operate. Zealous advocacy may seem to focus only on the client's interests; professionalism reminds attorneys that pursuing the client’s interest must take place in service to the interests of justice. Professionalism provides the guardrails that prevent zealous advocacy from turning into a free-for-all in which no holds are barred, and justice becomes irrelevant to promoting the client’s interest.
The “power of three” reminds us that civility, professionalism, and zealous advocacy are not competing ideals but instead work together to define our duty to our clients, our duty to the justice system, and our duty to respect others, which is the mark of effective lawyering. Zealous advocacy without civility leads to unproductive conflict, while civility without zeal risks losing sight of the client’s interests. Professionalism embraces both, ensuring that civility and advocacy serve the client and the justice system. A balanced commitment to all three creates a steady, resilient structure that upholds a lawyer’s duty to serve their client’s best interests within the rule of law.
