What is the standard for determining competence under Rule 1.1?

The correct statement regarding the standard for determining competence under Rule 1.1 is that an attorney must possess reasonable legal knowledge and skill. This standard emphasizes that attorneys are expected to perform competently in their areas of practice, which requires a basic understanding of the law relevant to their clients' matters, as well as the ability to apply that knowledge effectively.

Competence does not require an attorney to have the highest level of skills or be an expert in all legal areas; rather, it focuses on having adequate knowledge and skills to provide effective representation. This strikes a balance that allows for attorneys to handle cases within their expertise, seek assistance when needed, and continue to develop their skills throughout their careers.

The other options present standards that are either unrealistic or overly broad. Having the "best negotiation skills" or always winning cases sets a standard that is unattainable, as not every case can be won, nor is negotiation the sole measure of competence. Being familiar with all areas of law is impractical and unnecessary for most attorneys, as legal practice is typically specialized. Thus, the requirement of possessing reasonable legal knowledge and skill accurately reflects the essence of competence as per Rule 1.1.