Vt. R. Prof. Cond. 3.6
Comment
[1] It is difficult to strike a balance between protecting the right to a fair trial and safeguarding the right of free expression. Preserving the right to a fair trial necessarily entails some curtailment of the information that may be disseminated about a party prior to trial, particularly where trial by jury is involved. If there were no such limits, the result would be the practical nullification of the protective effect of the rules of forensic decorum and the exclusionary rules of evidence. On the other hand, there are vital social interests served by the free dissemination of information about events having legal consequences and about legal proceedings themselves. The public has a right to know about threats to its safety and measures aimed at assuring its security. It also has a legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in matters of general public concern. Furthermore, the subject matter of legal proceedings is often of direct significance in debate and deliberation over questions of public policy.
[2] Special rules of confidentiality may validly govern proceedings in juvenile, domestic relations and mental disability proceedings, and perhaps other types of litigation. Rule 3.4(c) requires compliance with such rules.
[3] The rule sets forth a basic general prohibition against a lawyer's making statements that the lawyer knows or should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding. Recognizing that the public value of informed commentary is great and the likelihood of prejudice to a proceeding by the commentary of a lawyer who is not involved in the proceeding is small, the rule applies only to lawyers who are, or who have been involved in, the investigation or litigation of a case, and their associates.
[4] Paragraph (b) identifies specific matters about which a lawyer's statements would not ordinarily be considered to present a substantial likelihood of material prejudice, and should not in any event be considered prohibited by the general prohibition of paragraph (a). Paragraph (b) is not intended to be an exhaustive listing of the subjects upon which a lawyer may make a statement, but statements on other matters may be subject to paragraph (a).
[5] There are, on the other hand, certain subjects that are more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding, particularly when they refer to a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in incarceration. These subjects relate to:
(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness;
(2) in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration, the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense or the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by a defendant or suspect or that person's refusal or failure to make a statement;
(3) the performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or test, or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented;
(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration; or
(5) information that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and that would, if disclosed, create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial.
[6] Another relevant factor in determining prejudice is the nature of the proceeding involved. Criminal jury trials will be most sensitive to extrajudicial speech. Civil trials may be less sensitive. Nonjury hearings and arbitration proceedings may be even less affected. The rule will still place limitations on prejudicial comments in these cases, but the likelihood of prejudice may be different depending on the type of proceeding.
[7] Finally, extrajudicial statements that might otherwise raise a question under this rule may be permissible when they are made in response to statements made publicly by another party, another party's lawyer, or third persons, where a reasonable lawyer would believe a public response is required in order to avoid prejudice to the lawyer's client. When prejudicial statements have been publicly made by others, responsive statements may have the salutary effect of lessening any resulting adverse impact on the adjudicative proceeding. Such responsive statements should be limited to contain only such information as is necessary to mitigate undue prejudice created by the statements made by others.
[8] See Rule 3.8(f) for additional duties of prosecutors in connection with extrajudicial statements about criminal proceedings.
Vt. R. Prof. Cond. 3.6
V.R.P.C. 3.6 is amended to conform to changes in Model Rule 3.6. The Reporter's Notes to the Vermont Rule as originally adopted stated that the word "substantial" was deleted in Rule 3.6(b)(6) to follow the former Vermont Code and to avoid "an unwarranted chilling effect on a lawyer's speech." In the rule as promulgated, however, the word was inadvertently not deleted, but this error was subsequently cured by amendment. See Reporter's Notes to 1999 Amendment of V.R.P.C. 3.6(b). The omission of "substantial" is continued in the rule as presently amended.
The ABA Reporter's Explanation is as follows:
TEXT:
1. Paragraph (a): Replace "reasonable person" with "reasonable lawyer"
As modified, paragraph (a) requires that a lawyer's assessment of the likelihood that a statement will be disseminated by means of public communication be judged from the perspective of a reasonable lawyer rather than a reasonable person. Whether a statement about legal proceedings will be publicly disseminated is an issue that may be viewed differently by lawyers and nonlawyers, and the Commission thinks that lawyers should only be subject to professional discipline when their judgments are unreasonably inconsistent with those of their professional peers.
2. Paragraph (a): Replace "would expect" with "knows or reasonably should know"
The Commission thinks that the scienter requirement in Rule 3.6 should employ wording consistent with the terminology as defined in Rule 1.0(f) and (j). Thus "reason to expect" is replaced with "knows or reasonably should know." No change in substance is intended.
COMMENT:
[8] Comment [8] is new and adds a crossreference to the paragraph in Rule 3.8 that sets forth special duties of prosecutors with respect to extrajudicial statements.