Model Rule 3.5: Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal
Rule 3.5 protects the fairness and dignity of judicial proceedings. It bars lawyers from trying to improperly influence judges, jurors, or other officials, prohibits certain communications with jurors, and forbids disruptive conduct in a tribunal.
When it applies
This rule comes up whenever a lawyer interacts with a judge or jury outside normal advocacy channels, or behaves disruptively during a hearing or trial; the MPRE tests it through fact patterns involving gifts to judges, ex parte contacts, post-verdict juror contact, and courtroom outbursts.
What the rule requires
- A lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror, or other court official by means prohibited by law.
- A lawyer shall not communicate ex parte with a judge or juror during a proceeding unless authorized by law or court order.
- Before and during trial, a lawyer shall not communicate with a juror or prospective juror unless the communication is authorized by law or court order.
- After discharge, a lawyer shall not communicate with a juror if the juror has told the lawyer they don't want contact, the communication involves misrepresentation, coercion, duress, or harassment, or if law or court order prohibits it.
- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.
- Lawyers must maintain proper decorum, meaning respectful, professional conduct in the courtroom.
Exceptions
- Communications authorized by law or court order are permitted (e.g., scheduling matters allowed under local rules).
- Post-verdict juror contact is generally allowed unless it falls into the prohibited categories (juror objection, harassment, coercion, misrepresentation, or prohibition by law or court order).
How the MPRE tests Model Rule 3.5
- Students forget that post-trial juror contact is generally permitted, and only specific categories of contact are barred - they wrongly assume all juror contact after trial is forbidden.
- Confusing "ex parte" prohibitions under 3.5 with confidentiality issues under 1.6, when the real issue is procedural fairness.
- Missing that "conduct intended to disrupt" requires some level of intent or purpose, not just conduct a judge finds irritating.
- Not distinguishing lawful contact with jurors authorized by court order from unauthorized ex parte contact.
Example
After a jury renders a verdict, a lawyer wants to interview jurors to understand their reasoning for future trial strategy. One juror explicitly says they do not want to speak with the lawyer, but the lawyer calls them anyway to ask questions. This violates Rule 3.5 because the juror communicated a desire not to be contacted, making further contact prohibited.
Related rules
On the MPRE
A plain-English summary of the ABA Model Rule, not the rule text. Your jurisdiction's version of the rule controls in practice.