|
|
|
2008 Edition: Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct Download Rules as a PDF | Return to Rules home page |
|||
|
Rule 3.5
IMPARTIALITY AND DECORUM OF THE TRIBUNAL A lawyer shall not:
(a) seek to influence a judge, juror, a member of the jury pool, or other official by means prohibited by law; (b) communicate ex parte with a judge, juror, or a member of the jury pool, prior to or during a proceeding, except as permitted by law; (c) communicate with a juror after completion of the juror’s term of service if the communication is prohibited by law, or is calculated merely to harass or embarrass the juror or to influence the juror’s actions in future jury service; (d) conduct a vexatious or harassing investigation of a juror or a member of the jury pool; or (e) engage in conduct intended to disrupt a proceeding before or conducted pursuant to the authority of a tribunal. COMMENTS [1] Many forms of improper influence upon a tribunal are proscribed by criminal law or by state or local rules of procedure. Others are specified in the Tennessee Code of Judicial Conduct, with which an advocate should be familiar. For example, a lawyer shall not give or lend anything of value to a judge, judicial officer, or employee of a tribunal, except as permitted by Section (C)(4) of Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. A lawyer, however, may make a contribution to the campaign fund of a candidate for judicial office in conformity with Section (B)(2) of Canon 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. [2] Paragraph (b) does not prohibit communicating with a judge on the merits of the cause in writing if the lawyer promptly delivers a copy of the writing to opposing counsel and to parties who are not represented by counsel. Oral communication is permitted upon adequate notice to opposing counsel and parties who are not represented by counsel. [3] Paragraph (b) also does not prohibit a lawyer from communicating with a judge in an ex parte hearing to establish the absence of a conflict of interest under Rule 1.7(c). In such proceedings, the lawyer is of course bound by the duty of candor in Rule 3.3(a)(3). [4] A communication with or an investigation of the spouse, child, parent, or sibling of a juror or a member of the jury pool will be deemed a communication with or an investigation of the juror. [5] The advocate’s function is to present evidence and argument 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 more effectively by using patient firmness than using belligerence or theatrics. [6] Paragraph (e) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct intended to disrupt a deposition as well as a trial. DEFINITIONAL CROSS-REFERENCES “Reasonably” See RPC 1.0(j) |
||
|
|||