规则 of Professional Conduct

规则3.5: Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal

澳门赌场官网不得:
   (a) Seek to influence a judge, 陪审员, 这名陪审员, or other official by means prohibited by law;
   (b) Communicate ex parte with such a person during the proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or court order;
   (c)沟通, either ex parte or with opposing counsel, with a 陪审员 or 这名陪审员 after discharge of the jury if:
      (1) The communication is prohibited by law or court order;
      (2) The 陪审员 or 这名陪审员 has made known to the lawyer a desire not to communicate; or
      (3) The communication involves misrepresentation, coercion, duress, or harassment; or
   (d) Engage in conduct intended to disrupt any proceeding of a tribunal, including a deposition.

评论

   [1] Many forms of improper influence upon a tribunal are proscribed by criminal law. Others are specified in the Code of Judicial Conduct, with which an advocate should be familiar. A lawyer is required to avoid contributing to a violation of such provisions.
   [2] During a proceeding a lawyer may not communicate ex parte with persons serving in an official capacity in the proceeding, 比如法官, 大师或陪审员, unless authorized to do so by law or court order.
   [3] A lawyer may on occasion want to communicate with a 陪审员 or 这名陪审员 after the jury has been discharged, even though the proceeding has not ended. 澳门赌场官网可以这样做, either ex parte or with opposing counsel, unless the communication is prohibited by law or a court order. 澳门赌场官网, 然而, must respect the desire of the 陪审员 or 这名陪审员 not to talk with the lawyer. 澳门赌场官网 may not engage in improper conduct during the communication.
   [4] 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 by patient firmness no less effectively than by belligerence or theatrics.