Can a lawyer file a general denial when the lawyer knows the client has no valid defense?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether a lawyer may interpose a general denial knowing that the client has no valid defense. It answered no.

The committee anchored the analysis in DR 2-109(A)(2), which forbids accepting employment to present a defense that is not warranted, and DR 7-102(A)(2), which forbids knowingly advancing an unwarranted defense once employed. It read EC 7-25 to allow a lawyer to test the validity of procedural rules in good faith but not to consciously violate them, and noted that a lawyer should subscribe to or verify only pleadings he believes comply with the law.

The committee explained that whether or not the lawyer personally subscribes to or verifies a pleading is beside the point: when a lawyer causes a civil pleading to be submitted, it carries the implicit representation that he believes it accurate, that to the best of his knowledge there is good ground to support it, and that it is not interposed for delay (comparing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 with CPLR 3018(a) and 3020). It distinguished civil from criminal practice, where a defendant has the right to insist on proof of guilt; no similar right exists in civil actions.

The committee said that while delay may benefit a defendant or produce a favorable settlement, a lawyer may not pursue those ends by inappropriate means, and the technical ability to gain delay through a general denial is a procedural device, not a legal right of the client, that frustrates the administration of justice when misused. Citing N.Y. City 75 (1927-28), it concurred that interposing a general denial is improper whenever any material allegation of the complaint is true. Given the lawyer's dual duty to the legal system and to the client (Canons 1 and 7), where the client has no legal right to advance in defense the duty to the administration of justice precludes the general denial. The question was answered in the negative.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1977, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009 (the duty to assert only meritorious claims and defenses is now governed by Rule 3.1, and candor toward the tribunal by Rule 3.3). Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Is a general denial ever improper?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The committee held it is improper to interpose a general denial when the lawyer knows the client has no valid defense, concurring that it is improper whenever any material allegation of the complaint is true.

Q: Does filing a denial just to gain delay change the analysis?

A: The committee said delay is not a legal right of the client. It held that gaining delay through a general denial is a procedural device that frustrates the administration of justice when misused.

Q: Is a civil general denial like a criminal not-guilty plea?

A: No. The committee distinguished the two, noting a criminal defendant may insist on proof of guilt but no similar right exists in civil actions.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies DR 2-109(A)(2) and DR 7-102(A)(2) (not presenting or advancing an unwarranted defense) with EC 7-25 on compliance with rules of procedure, framed by the dual duties in Canons 1 and 7. The current Model Rule analogues are Rule 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions) and Rule 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions)
• MR 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal)
• NY Canons 1, 7; EC 7-25; DR 2-109(A)(2), DR 7-102(A)(2)

Statutes and rules:

• Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; CPLR 3018(a); CPLR 3020

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. City 75 (1927-28): a general denial is improper whenever a material allegation of the complaint is true

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 472: General counsel asked to bring a suit it believes lacks merit
• NY State Bar Op. 475: Suing on a claim the limitations period has run on

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-469/