Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneylawyerwill
attorneylawyerwillrespondent

Related Cases

Martello v. Santana, 713 F.3d 309
View Case »
The Florida Bar re Ines, 718 So.2d 779, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S478
View Case »
Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641, 107 S.Ct. 2607, 96 L.Ed.2d 557, 55 USLW 4877, 7 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1139
View Case »
Heavener v. Meyers, 158 F.Supp.2d 1278
View Case »
LaHood v. Couri, 236 Ill.App.3d 641, 603 N.E.2d 1165, 177 Ill.Dec. 791
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 111 S.Ct. 2720, 115 L.Ed.2d 888, 59 USLW 4858

Facts

Petitioner Gentile, an attorney, held a press conference the day after his client, Sanders, was indicted on criminal charges. The State Bar of Nevada filed a complaint against Gentile, alleging that his statements during the press conference violated Nevada Supreme Court Rule 177, which prohibits lawyers from making extrajudicial statements that could materially prejudice an adjudicative proceeding. The Disciplinary Board found Gentile in violation of the Rule and recommended a private reprimand, which was affirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court.

Petitioner Gentile, an attorney, held a press conference the day after his client, Sanders, was indicted on criminal charges under Nevada law. Six months later, a jury acquitted Sanders. Subsequently, respondent State Bar of Nevada filed a complaint against Gentile, alleging that statements he made during the press conference violated Nevada Supreme Court Rule 177.

Issue

Did attorney Gentile violate Nevada Supreme Court Rule 177 by making extrajudicial statements that had a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding?

Did attorney Gentile violate Nevada Supreme Court Rule 177 by making extrajudicial statements that had a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding?

Rule

Nevada Supreme Court Rule 177 prohibits a lawyer from making extrajudicial statements to the press that he knows or reasonably should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.

Rule 177 prohibits a lawyer from making '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.'

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Gentile's statements during the press conference created a substantial likelihood of material prejudice. It concluded that the vagueness of Rule 177, particularly its safe harbor provision, misled Gentile into believing he could speak without fear of discipline. The court found that the rule failed to provide fair notice and was imprecise, leading to potential discriminatory enforcement.

Its safe harbor provision, Rule 177(3), misled Gentile into thinking that he could give his press conference without fear of discipline. Given the Rule's grammatical structure and the absence of a clarifying interpretation by the state court, the Rule fails to provide fair notice to those to whom it is directed and is so imprecise that discriminatory enforcement is a real possibility.

Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court's judgment against Gentile was reversed, as the court found that the application of Rule 177 violated the First Amendment.

Held: The judgment is reversed.

Who won?

Gentile prevailed in the case because the court found that the application of the rule against him was unconstitutional and that his statements did not pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice.

Gentile prevailed in the case because the court found that the application of the rule against him was unconstitutional and that his statements did not pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice.

You must be