April 30, 2026
Deadlines and Duties: A Reflection on Our Conflicting Responsibilities
BY: Nathan Moelker1
Two duties are at the heart of our profession as attorneys and professional counselors. On the one hand is our duty to advocate and defend our clients. Fundamental to the nature of the profession, even the word profession itself, is that we do not act in our own interests, but in the interests of our clients. But on the other hand is our duty to opposing counsel and the court as fellow “ministers at the altars of justice.”2
These duties are, of course, ultimately consistent with one another when lawyers advocate effectively and respect. But it’s easy, especially as a young lawyer, for these two responsibilities to at times seem to be in tension. The real ethical challenges of legal practice arise when different responsibilities seem to be in tension with one another. I reflect here on particular tension that seems to arise often, at least for me; what to do when opposing counsel requests for additional time for a deadline.
When viewed through the lens of our duty of civility courtesy towards one another, the answer to extension requests would seem easy; just as we would wish to have additional time to navigate a deadline if the circumstances led us to need the time, so should we treat others and their requests. A natural inclination therefore might be to try to never use time or deadlines against the other party. Taking such ideas to their ultimate extreme, we would set aside entirely rules on timeliness entirely. One nineteenth century legal ethicist, David Hoffman, took that very position, arguing: “I will never plead the statute of limitations when based on the mere efflux of time; for if my client is conscious he owes the debt, and has no other defense than the legal bar, he shall never make me a partner in his knavery.”3
While many of Hoffman’s other insights are deeply beneficial, it’s not hard to see the danger of describing the Statute of Limitations as “knavery.” Our responsibility is to advocate effectively for our client, as an agent and defender of his or her interests. To set aside entirely arguments based on timeliness is to refuse to use an important tool in the toolbox, and one that exists for a reason. Consider the application of this greater rule to the lesser. If we would not set aside entirely the tool of the Statute of Limitations in order to protect our client’s interests, why would we set aside entirely the lesser deadlines that likewise protect our client’s rights?
After all, timeframes and deadlines exist for a reason. A brief that Opposing Counsel has 210 days to prepare is qualitatively different from a brief written in 21 days. Discovery completed in 30 days is inherently unlike that done in 300. Time is not just time, it is an opportunity for work to be done differently. And even more importantly, any additional time is time our client is kept from ultimately prevailing in our litigation. This reality is particularly acute in the civil rights cases I litigate, but all attorneys face this reality in one way or another; an additional month might be an additional month a business cannot open or someone is stuck in a difficult marriage; another month, in other words, that our client is kept from prevailing.
Any extension request feels difficult when considering our duty to the client. So what is the solution, never agreeing to extensions? Far from it. The Courts are from friendly to litigators who deal unrespectfully with those they oppose Refusing reasonable requests for an additional week could well cost a judge’s favor. And thus, the tension is resolved by a dose of common sense. Treating our fellow attorneys with decency and respect is ultimately in the best interests of our clients; no client is served by persuading an opposing counsel or judge that we cannot operate respectfully. This is the case even if the client thinks otherwise: the lawyer has a duty “to be the keeper of the conscience of the client; not to suffer him, through the influence of his feelings or interest, to do or say anything wrong in itself, and of which he would himself afterwards repent.”4 This responsibility will ultimately be in the best interests of our client.
In a sense, then, every extension request becomes a microcosm of legal practice itself. It forces us to sit with the discomfort of competing duties and to resist the temptation of resolving that discomfort too quickly — either by reflexively saying yes in the name of collegiality, or reflexively saying no in the name of zealous advocacy. The truth, hard to learn, is that our obligations to our clients and our obligations to the bar are not truly at war with one another. They are two expressions of the same underlying commitment to justice, properly pursued. The attorney who treats opposing counsel with dignity, who grants reasonable accommodations without surrendering strategic judgment, and who knows the difference between the two, is truly embodying their client’s interests.
Endnotes:
1 Nathan Moelker is Senior Associate Counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, a nonprofit organization specializing in First Amendment law and religious freedom. He litigates cases related to these issues in courts all over the country, including at the U.S. Supreme Court. He clerked for Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker. Nathan is also the author of several law review articles, primarily focused on the First Amendment. All views expressed are his own.
2 DAVID HOFFMAN, 2 A COURSE OF LEGAL STUDY 746 (2d ed. 1836).
3 Id. at 754.
4 GEORGE SHARWOOD, AN ESSAY ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS 54 (2nd ed. 1860).