The advocate has a duty to use legal procedure
for the fullest benefit of the client’s cause, but also a duty not to
abuse legal procedure. The law, both procedural and substantive, establishes
the limits within which an advocate may proceed. However, the law is
not always clear and never is static. Accordingly, in determining the
proper scope of advocacy, account must be taken of the law’s ambiguities
and potential for change.
 The filing of an action or defense or similar action taken for a client is not frivolous merely because the facts have not first been fully substantiated or because the lawyer expects to develop vital evidence only by discovery. Such action is not frivolous even though the lawyer believes that the client’s position ultimately will not prevail. The action is frivolous if the lawyer is unable either to make a good-faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good-faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
 In criminal cases or proceedings in which the respondent can be involuntarily institutionalized, such as juvenile delinquency and civil commitment cases, the lawyer is not only permitted, but is indeed required, to put the government to its proof whenever the client elects to contest adjudication.