Can a lawyer tell the press that he reported another lawyer to the disciplinary commission and describe the alleged misconduct?

Plain-English summary

Attorney A reported Attorney B to the ARDC for misconduct and told the press about the report, describing the alleged conduct; the press published an account. Judge C, after reading the newspaper account, also reported Attorney B to the ARDC and told the media he had done so. The inquiry asked whether it was improper for Attorney A to tell the media about his report and describe the conduct, whether it was improper for the judge to tell the media of his report, and whether the target, Attorney B, could comment publicly on the reports and on any ARDC action.

The opinion concluded that statements to the press about the ARDC matter would be improper only where they "would pose a serious and imminent threat to the fairness of an adjudicative proceeding" under Rule 3.6(a). It explained that Rule 3.6(b) treats such statements as ordinarily likely to have that effect when they refer to a jury-triable civil matter, a criminal matter, or a proceeding that could result in incarceration. Because an ARDC case is a civil matter not triable to a jury and not resulting in incarceration, the opinion concluded the described comments were unlikely to be improper under Rule 3.6(b) unless the conduct would also subject the target to civil or criminal liability and the other requirements were met; otherwise they would have to be shown to pose a serious and imminent threat to the fairness of the ARDC or a related proceeding, which the limited facts did not allow it to assess.

The opinion noted that Supreme Court Rule 766 makes disciplinary proceedings public except for specified confidential matters (such as investigations and pre-complaint proceedings), so no specific rule barred statements about ARDC proceedings posing no serious and imminent threat to fairness. It cautioned, however, that the absolute immunity from civil liability under Supreme Court Rule 775 applies only to communications made to the ARDC and its personnel, so the comments to the media would not qualify, and it observed that the duty to report misconduct under Rules 8.3 and 8.4 would not likely be triggered by reports read in a newspaper.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992, before Illinois adopted the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in May 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rules (pointing to Rule 3.6(a), (b), and (c)), while noting the specific standards referenced may differ from the 2010 Rules. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer tell the press he reported another lawyer to the disciplinary commission?

A: The opinion concluded he may, and may describe the alleged misconduct, unless the statements pose a serious and imminent threat to the fairness of the ARDC or a related proceeding under Rule 3.6(a).

Q: Why is an ARDC report treated more permissively under the trial-publicity rule?

A: The opinion concluded an ARDC case is a civil matter not triable to a jury and not resulting in incarceration, so Rule 3.6(b)'s presumption against publicity is generally not triggered.

Q: Does talking to the press carry the same immunity as reporting to the ARDC?

A: No. The opinion concluded the absolute civil-liability immunity under Supreme Court Rule 775 applies only to communications to the ARDC and its personnel, not to statements to the media.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted Rule 3.6 (trial publicity), applying subsection (a)'s "serious and imminent threat" standard, subsection (b)'s categories of presumptively prejudicial statements, and subsection (c)'s permitted disclosures, read together with Illinois Supreme Court Rules 766 (confidentiality of disciplinary proceedings) and 775 (reporting immunity) (Model Rule 3.6).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 3.6 (trial publicity) / Illinois Rule 3.6(a), (b), (c)

Statutes:

• Illinois Supreme Court Rules 766 (confidentiality and privacy of disciplinary proceedings) and 775 (immunity for reports to the ARDC)

See also

• ISBA Ethics Op. 91-23: Reporting a Self-Dealing Will
• NY State Bar Op. 620: DA Press Release on Evidence

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/9119