Which of the following is a requirement for a lawyer when defending a proceeding that could lead to incarceration?

In a legal context, particularly under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer representing a client in a proceeding that could result in incarceration has a fundamental duty to provide a competent defense. This includes ensuring that every element of a case is established to the best of their ability.

A successful defense often requires the lawyer to critically assess the prosecution's case and to challenge the evidence presented. This might involve showing that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof on essential elements of the charged offense. If the lawyer did not ensure that these elements were challenged or properly established, they could be failing in their duty to represent their client vigorously and competently.

The other options do not align with the responsibilities imposed on lawyers in such situations. A frivolous defense (the first option) contradicts the requirement for zealous representation because it undermines the legitimacy of the legal process. Arguing for case dismissal (the third option) can be pertinent in certain situations but is not a requisite because it depends on the specifics of the case. Ignoring existing law (the fourth option) is contrary to the ethical obligations of a lawyer, as they must adhere to the law and precedents relevant to their case.

Thus, ensuring that every element of