## Facts

- Douglas F. Gansler, the Montgomery County State’s Attorney, gave multiple media interviews about several pending criminal matters handled by his office.
- In those interviews, he discussed case evidence and, in some instances, stated or implied: a defendant had confessed, a defendant had a prior criminal record, and he believed certain defendants were guilty.
- He also made public comments about plea negotiations, including indicating a possible plea and describing a limited time for acceptance.
- The Attorney Grievance Commission filed disciplinary charges alleging violations of MRPC 3.1, 3.6, 3.8, 8.2(a), and 8.4(a), (d).
- After an evidentiary hearing, the hearing judge found a violation of MRPC 3.6(a) but found insufficient proof of the other alleged violations; both sides filed exceptions.

## Issues

1. Whether Gansler’s extrajudicial media statements about pending criminal cases created a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing adjudicative proceedings in violation of MRPC 3.6(a).
2. Whether the same conduct also violated MRPC 3.1, 3.8, 8.2(a), and 8.4(a), (d), including claims tied to prosecutions of two juveniles for alleged bomb threats.
3. Whether “extrajudicial statement” under MRPC 3.6 reaches indirect publicity where an attorney causes or encourages non-lawyers to disseminate information to the media.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals found multiple violations of MRPC 3.6(a), including statements concerning a possible guilty plea, a defendant’s confession, and Gansler’s opinions about the guilt of two defendants.
- The Court rejected a categorical defense that repetition of publicly available information cannot violate MRPC 3.6(a).
- The Court declined to find violations of MRPC 3.1, 3.8, or 8.4 based on the decision to prosecute the juvenile bomb-threat matters.
- The Court did not impose additional discipline under MRPC 8.2(a) or 8.4 based on comments criticizing an appellate decision.
- Sanction: reprimand.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer violates MRPC 3.6(a) by making an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be publicly disseminated and has a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a pending adjudicative proceeding.
- Prosecutorial statements about a defendant’s confession, prior criminal record, or the prosecutor’s personal opinion of guilt are especially likely to be materially prejudicial when broadcast before trial.
- Public commentary about plea discussions or plea offers may materially prejudice proceedings and can violate MRPC 3.6(a).
- Even if information is already public, repeating it in a manner or context that increases the likelihood of material prejudice can still violate MRPC 3.6(a).
- “Extrajudicial statement” includes efforts to evade trial-publicity limits by directing or encouraging non-lawyers to publicize information so that the attorney can then speak about it.

## Conclusion

The court disciplined a sitting State’s Attorney for trial-publicity misconduct, holding that public statements about confessions, possible pleas, and personal views of guilt in pending criminal matters violated MRPC 3.6(a), while rejecting other alleged ethics violations and imposing a reprimand.


Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Gansler, 377 Md. 656, 835 A.2d 548 (Md. 2003)