AL · rules

Ala. R. Prof'l Conduct 3.6

Trial Publicity

activein force · 2008-06-23 – presentact-effective-date

(a) A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person

would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows

or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing

an adjudicative proceeding.

(b) A statement referred to in paragraph (a) ordinarily is likely to have such an

effect when it refers to a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal matter, or any other

proceeding that could result in incarceration, and the statement relates 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;

(5) information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to

be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and would if disclosed create a substantial

risk of prejudicing an impartial trial; or

(6) the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime, unless there

is included therein a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation

and that the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

investigation or litigation of a matter may state without elaboration:

(1) the general nature of the claim or defense;

(2) the information contained in a public record;

(3) that an investigation of the matter is in progress, including the

general scope of the investigation, the offense or claim or defense involved and,

except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;

(4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;

(5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information

necessary thereto;

(6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved,

when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm

to an individual or to the public interest; and

(7) in a criminal case:

(i) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the

accused;

(ii) if the accused has not been apprehended, information

necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;

(iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and

(iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies

and the length of the investigation.

(8) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) above, a lawyer may make

a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client

from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the

lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be

limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.

History

[Amended eff. 6-23-2008.] Comment 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. No body of rules can simultaneously satisfy all interests of fair trial and all those of free expression. The formula in this Rule is based upon the ABA former Code of Professional Responsibility and the ABA Standards Relating to Fair Trial and Free Press, as amended in 1978. The standard to be applied in Rule 3.6(a) is the “serious and imminent threat” test developed in the case of Chicago Counsel of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 242 (7th Cir.1975). 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. Comparison with Former Alabama Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 3.6 is similar to DR 7-107, except as follows: First, Rule 3.6 adopts the general criteria of “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding” to describe impermissible conduct. Second, Rule 3.6 transforms the particulars in DR 7-107 into an illustrative compilation that gives fair notice of conduct ordinarily posing unacceptable dangers to the fair administration of justice. Finally, Rule 3.6 omits DR 7-107(B)(7), which provided that a lawyer may reveal “[a]t the time of seizure, a description of the physical evidence seized, other than a confession, admission or statement.” Such revelations may be substantially prejudicial and are frequently the subject of pretrial suppression motions, which, if successful, may be circumvented by prior disclosure to the press. Note from the reporter of decisions: The order amending Rule 1.8, the Comment to Rule 1.8, Rule 1.10(a), the Comment to Rule 1.10, Rule 1.12, Rule 1.14, the Comment to Rule 1.14, the Comment to Rule 3.2, Rule 3.6, the Comment to Rule 3.7, Rule 3.9, and Rule 4.4 is published in that volume of Alabama Reporter that contains Alabama cases from 983 So.2d.

Provenance

Source: judicial.alabama.gov
Retrieved: 2026-09-15
Edition: 2026-09-15
Content hash: 31404892c077606ebff447c61d50a47a295643fb091f7230545f4ee5860ab976

View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs