The article addresses an ethical problem in legal practice: lawyers who demand substantive case concessions in exchange for granting adjournments. This practice exploits procedural flexibility to extract settlement leverage, undermining fair dispute resolution.
Adjournments serve legitimate purposes. Parties need time to prepare evidence, consult experts, or arrange schedules. Granting reasonable continuances reflects professional courtesy and supports efficient case management. However, lawyers who weaponize adjournments cross an ethical line.
Conditioning delays on substantive concessions essentially coerces opponents into unfavorable positions. A party facing a trial date cannot freely negotiate when the alternative involves losing preparation time. This dynamic pressures weaker parties or those with limited resources into accepting bad terms simply to obtain reasonable accommodations.
Professional rules governing lawyer conduct emphasize fair dealing and avoiding improper leverage. Bar associations recognize that linking procedural requests to case merits violates these principles. The practice also damages court efficiency by forcing judges to resolve disputes that should resolve through professional comity.
The piece advocates for clearer ethical norms prohibiting this conduct. Lawyers should grant adjournments based on legitimate need alone, separate from case negotiations. Protecting procedural fairness requires rejecting tactics that transform necessary continuances into bargaining chips.