The rule for pretrial and trial publicity is set forth in Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Responsibility Rule 3.6. That rule essentially prohibits a lawyer from public communication that “will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicate proceeding in the matter.” Rule 3.6 then discusses specific information that can and cannot be released both in civil and criminal cases. Under 3.6, there is a safety valve under Section C that a lawyer can make a statement to protect the client from substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client. The response, though, has to be limited to as necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.
What is of interest is the U.S. District Court for the Eastern of Pennsylvania’s local Criminal Rule 53.1. This is titled, “Releasing Information by Attorneys in Criminal Cases.” That rule seems to set forth a different standard. The standard in that rule is “if there is a reasonable likelihood that such dissemination would interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the administration of justice.” That standard appears to be a lesser standard than the Rule 3.6 substantial likelihood.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
