Also known as: Model Rule 3.6 · Rule 3.6 · trial publicity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of professional conduct that bars a lawyer participating in the investigation or litigation of a matter from making an extrajudicial statement the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.
Maria Morales represents a manufacturer in a product liability suit still in discovery. She appears on a business podcast and states that the injured plaintiffs deliberately misused the equipment while intoxicated, though no evidence of intoxication has surfaced in discovery and no public record contains those claims. Potential jurors in the venue listen to the podcast. The statements create a substantial likelihood of tainting the jury pool before trial.
Matthew Martinez represents a defendant in a pending securities action. He appears on a financial news program and reads verbatim from the publicly filed indictment and bail order, noting only the scheduling result reflected in the court documents. He adds no new facts or characterizations beyond the docket materials. The statements fall within the permitted category for public record information.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The rule prohibits statements that a lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated publicly and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the proceeding. The focus is on the risk created by the content and timing rather than proof of actual prejudice.
Yes. Lawyers may state the claim or defense involved, information contained in a public record, and the scheduling or result of litigation steps. These categories remain subject to the overarching prohibition against creating a substantial likelihood of material prejudice.
Discipline under trial publicity rules must satisfy constitutional standards. A rule that is vague in its safe harbors or application can be held unconstitutional because it fails to give fair notice and risks discriminatory enforcement against protected speech.
Yes. Statements made close to jury selection or trial heighten the risk of material prejudice because information can reach and influence the venire. Earlier statements may still violate the rule if they introduce new prejudicial details likely to linger in the community.