Connecticut's Rule 3.1 is almost identical to the ABA Model Rule 3.1. Both rules emphasize that attorneys should avoid frivolous litigation and ensure their claims or defenses have a basis in law and fact. Connecticut's rule explicitly allows criminal defense attorneys to require the establishment of every element of the case. Example Case: Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson Key Legal Holdings: The respondent violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules 3.1, 3.2, 3.3(a)(1), 8.1(1), 8.4(2), 8.4(3), and 8.4(4). The respondent, an attorney, engaged in frivolous litigation to delay foreclosure proceedings. He argued repeatedly, without basis, that the estates of his deceased parents were necessary parties and filed numerous repetitive motions and appeals. He also made false statements to the grievance panel. Court Rationale: Rule 3.1: Frivolous claims with no legal basis. Rule 3.2: Tactics caused unnecessary delays. Rule 3.3(a)(1): False statements to the grievance panel. Rule 8.1(1): False statements during the disciplinary process. Rule 8.4(3): Dishonesty and misrepresentation. Rule 8.4(4): Conduct prejudicial to justice. The respondent was suspended from practicing law for six months. I agree with the outcome. Attorneys must ensure their actions are grounded in law and fact. Filing frivolous lawsuits wastes judicial resources and harms all parties involved. The disciplinary action in this case was justified to maintain the integrity of the law." Reply