Rule Text (verbatim from The Florida Bar)
(a) Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements Prohibited. 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 due to its creation of an imminent and
substantial detrimental effect on that proceeding.
(b) Statements of Third Parties. A lawyer shall not counsel
or assist another person to make such a statement. Counsel shall
exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, employees, or
other persons assisting in or associated with a case from making
extrajudicial statements that are prohibited under this rule.
Educational reference. This page summarizes a Florida Rule of Professional Conduct for educational purposes. The rule text and Comment are mirrored from the Florida Bar's official publication and are public domain. The plain-English summary and any commentary are the opinion of Phillips, Hunt & Walker and are general information only — not legal advice. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you believe a Florida lawyer has violated this rule, you can file a complaint with The Florida Bar at floridabar.org. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
What this rule means in plain English
A Florida lawyer participating in a case cannot make extrajudicial statements (press conferences, social media, podcasts) that have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the case. The rule recognizes the line between public-interest commentary and trial-by-media. High-profile cases get more leeway for general statements; specific content about evidence, parties, or anticipated testimony is restricted. The rule protects the right to a fair trial from being undermined by lawyer’s-own-side media campaigns.
Florida Bar Ethics Opinions interpreting this rule
- Opinion 64-9 (1964)
<p>When a lawyer participates in an educational television program, the lawyer should discuss hypothetical situations rather than actual cases. Real client matters in a public-broadcast format risk both confidentiality breaches and trial publicity issues. The rule predates social media, but the principle scales: lawyer commentary on the news, in podcasts, or on social channels should keep individual case facts out of it.</p>
Read on floridabar.org →
Comment (verbatim from The Florida Bar)
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.
Amended July 23, 1992, effective January 1, 1993 (605 So.2d 252);
amended Oct. 20, 1994 (644 So.2d 282).