Also known as:ABA Model Rules 3.6 · Rule 3.6 · trial publicity rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of professional conduct that prohibits a lawyer participating in litigation from making an extrajudicial statement that 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.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Podcast Accusations in Equipment Suit
Cole represents a manufacturer sued by injured workers. While discovery is ongoing, Cole appears on a business podcast and states that the workers deliberately misused the equipment while intoxicated. The statements reach potential jurors in the venue and introduce unproven claims of criminal conduct never mentioned in any public filing. The statements create a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the proceeding because they taint the jury pool with inflammatory details months before trial.
Prosecutor Press Conference Remarks
A prosecutor handling a high-profile fraud case holds a press conference and states that the defendant shredded documents to conceal the scheme. The remarks go beyond basic case information and heighten public condemnation of the accused. Because the statements have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing the trial, they trigger discipline under the trial publicity rule even though the prosecutor claims they served a law enforcement purpose.
Put it into practice
Test Yourself
8
Practice Questions4
· 2 primary sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Model Codes
Study Supplements
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What standard does the rule use to determine whether a statement is prohibited?+
The rule bars statements that a lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be publicly disseminated and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding. The focus is on the risk created by the content and timing rather than proof of actual prejudice to seated jurors.
May a lawyer repeat information already in a public court filing?+
Yes. The rule expressly permits a lawyer to state information contained in a public record even if the statement reaches potential jurors. A lawyer who limits comments to filed pleadings or orders stays within the safe harbor and does not violate the rule.
Does the rule apply only to criminal cases?+
No. The prohibition governs both civil and criminal litigation. A lawyer in a pending civil suit who makes inflammatory public statements about unproven facts risks discipline when those statements create a substantial likelihood of prejudicing the proceeding.
What safe harbors does the rule provide for basic case information?+
A lawyer may state the claim or defense involved, the identity of parties, information in a public record, the scheduling or result of litigation steps, and requests for assistance in obtaining evidence. These categories remain available even when the case is pending and newsworthy.
Professional ResponsibilityLitigation and other forms of advocacy · Trial publicityMPREFoundational