LawBank and Copo Strategies host, “The Ethics of Making Your Client’s Case in the Court of Public Opinion”
As part of the trial series offered to the solo and small law firm community, LawBank hosted a lunchtime presentation on Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6 and the court of public opinion. The program took place on August 31, 2020, and featured Wayne Pollock as the presenter. Wayne is the Founder and Managing Attorney at Copo Strategies, a national legal services and communications firm. Copo Strategies aims to help attorneys and their clients ethically and strategically engage the court of public opinion to win legal disputes more favorably and quickly.
To begin the presentation, Wayne defined the court of public opinion, explained who it is comprised of, and discussed why it is valuable to engage in. Made up of several parties, the court of public opinion includes the media, general public, elected officials and government regulators, public figures, advocacy organizations and many others. Wayne explained that, first and foremost, it is advantageous to engage in the court of public opinion to encourage favorable settlements. However, another important reason is to find additional plaintiffs or defendants, including potential class members.
Next, Wayne defined and explained Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6 and the comments to the rule. He examined the case of Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, which he considers the case on Rule 3.6. The case dealt with an attorney who held a press conference the day after his client’s criminal indictment, made statements about his client’s innocence, and shared his strategy for proving his innocence. Wayne shared that, while he made common statements a criminal defense attorney would say, the Nevada Disciplinary Board eventually brought a proceeding against Gentile, claiming he violated Rule 177, which was Nevada’s version of Colorado Rule 3.6.
Wayne then shared that Rule 3.6’s prohibition is aimed at two principle evils, (1) comments that are likely to influence the actual outcome of the trial and (2) comments that are likely to prejudice the jury venire, even if an untainted panel can ultimately be found. Wayne noted that, according to Justice Kennedy, who heard the Gentile case, additional relevant factors to consider when speaking with the media include: (1) the size of the community from which a jury venire would be drawn, (2) whether an attorney merely connected the public “dots,” (3) whether the trial was impacted by the statements at issue, (4) the amount of time that elapsed between the comments and the trial, and (5) whether inadmissible evidence was referenced in the public statement.
Wayne involved program participants in viewing and dissecting three video case studies of attorneys speaking to the media and led a discussion on whether they would violate Rule 3.6. The videos examined included the George Zimmerman case’s Mark O’Mara, the United Airlines/David Dao case’s Thomas Demetrio, and the Penn State/Tim Piazza case’s Stacy Parks Miller. To conclude the presentation, Wayne shared the “court interference” theory, which serves as a quick way to tell whether what you are about to say violates Rule 3.6. He hosted a Q & A session and shared links to free resources through Copo Strategies.
If you are interested in participating in other presentations offered by LawBank, visit the events page to view upcoming programs.
ABOUT LAWBANK
Offering central locations in Denver and Las Vegas, LawBank is the premier choice for solo practice and small law firm office space. With private offices, office suites, and cubicle spaces available, LawBank is the community where independent law firms can grow and thrive. LawBank members have access to modern amenities, business development opportunities, community events, and vendor discounts. If you are looking for a unique, collaborative solution for your independent law firm, contact LawBank today to schedule a virtual or in-person tour.
