W.Va. R. Prof. Cond. 3.5

As amended through January 31, 2024

Rule 3.5 - Impartiality and Decorum in the Tribunal

A lawyer shall not:

(a) seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror 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) After conclusion of a trial, a lawyer, or an agent of a lawyer, shall not communicate or attempt to communicate with a member of the jury, or an alternate juror who was dismissed prior to deliberations, about the trial, the jury's deliberations or verdict without first applying for and obtaining an order from the court. Notice of a request to communicate with a juror or alternate juror shall be given to all parties;

(d) engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.

W.va. R. Prof. Cond. 3.5

COMMENT

[1] Many forms of improper influence upon a tribunal are proscribed by criminal law. Others are specified in the West Virginia 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, such as judges, masters or jurors, unless authorized to do so by law or court order.

[3] 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 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.

[4] The duty to refrain from disruptive conduct applies to any proceeding of a tribunal, including a deposition. See Rule 1.0(m).

[5] The standards of ethical conduct established by this rule are to be read consistent with Trial Court Rule 4.09.

.