CT · rules
Conn. R. Prof'l Conduct 3.5
Impartiality and Decorum
A lawyer shall not:
(1) Seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective
juror or other official by means prohibited by law;
(2) Communicate ex parte with such a person
during the proceeding unless authorized to do so
by law or court order;
(3) Communicate with a juror or prospective
juror after discharge of the jury if:
(a) the communication is prohibited by law or
court order;
(b) the juror has made known to the lawyer a
desire not to communicate; or
(c) the communication involves misrepresentation, coercion, duress or harassment; or
(4) Engage in conduct intended to disrupt a
tribunal or ancillary proceedings such as depositions and mediations.
History
(Amended June 26, 2006, to take effect Jan. 1, 2007.) (P.B. 1978-1997, Rule 3.5.) (Amended June 26, 2006, to take effect Jan. 1, 2007; amended June 29, 2007, to take effect Jan. 1, 2008.) COMMENTARY: Many forms of improper influence upon a tribunal are proscribed by criminal law. Others are specified in the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, with which an advocate should be familiar. A lawyer is required to avoid contributing to a violation of such provisions. During a proceeding a lawyer may not communicate ex parte with persons serving in an official capacity in the proceed- ing, such as judges, masters or jurors, unless authorized to do so by law or court order. A lawyer may on occasion want to communicate with a juror or prospective juror after the jury has been discharged. The lawyer may do so unless the communication is prohibited by law or a court order but must respect the desire of the juror not to talk with the lawyer. The lawyer may not engage in improper conduct during the communication. The advocate’s function is to present evidence and argu- ment so that the cause may be decided according to law. Refraining from abusive or obstreperous conduct is a corollary of the advocate’s right to speak on behalf of litigants. A lawyer may stand firm against abuse by a judge but should avoid reciprocation; the judge’s default is no justification for similar dereliction by an advocate. An advocate can present the cause, protect the record for subsequent review and preserve professional integrity by patient firmness no less effectively than by belligerence or theatrics.
Provenance
- Source
- jud.ct.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-15
- Edition
- 2026-09-15
- Content hash
816ae36761445f53e6784a64714a35d995a534ee579a99d87be90bf1701e605b
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.