Also known as: Model Rules 3.6 · MR 3.6 · Rule 3.6 · ABA Model 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.
Cole represented River Works in a products liability suit brought by injured factory workers. While discovery was ongoing, Cole appeared on a business podcast and accused the workers of deliberate misuse while intoxicated, even though no evidence of intoxication had surfaced in the case. The statements reached potential jurors in the venue and introduced new allegations of criminal conduct months before trial.
Carrie represented a policyholder suing Pinnacle Claims for bad-faith denial of wildfire losses. Weeks before jury selection, Carrie posted on a local community forum that the insurer secretly trained adjusters to lie and shred records, citing materials she expected to obtain in discovery but that had not yet been filed. The post went viral among county residents from whom jurors would be drawn.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The rule bars statements 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.
Supporting sources
Yes. A lawyer may state information contained in a public record even if the statements reach potential jurors. The safe harbor applies when the lawyer limits remarks to documents already filed with the court and adds no new prejudicial facts or characterizations.
Supporting sources
No. Attributing inflammatory accusations to the client does not remove the risk of material prejudice when the statements go beyond permitted categories and are likely to taint the jury pool. The rule examines the content and foreseeable impact of the lawyer's own words.
Supporting sources
No. Preexisting coverage may narrow the scope of prejudice, but new specific allegations of misconduct not yet in the public record can still create a substantial likelihood of material prejudice when disseminated to the local jury pool shortly before trial.
Supporting sources