"An attorney’s duties do not begin inside the courtroom door ... Just as an attorney may recommend a plea bargain or civil settlement to avoid the adverse consequences of a possible loss after trial, so too an attorney may take reasonable steps to defend a client’s reputation ... including an attempt to demonstrate in the court of public opinion that the client does not deserve to be tried."

For years, many lawyers felt that almost any form of public communication skirted the ethical line. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct try to strike a balance between the rights of parties to a fair legal proceeding and the public’s right to know about matters of public interest. Rule 3.6 prohibits lawyers from going public with information "the lawyer knows or reasonably should know ... will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing" the court. The Rule carves out a number of exceptions, including statements "required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client."

And Justice Kennedy’s opinion supports the view that an attorney need not sit silently by while his client is mercilessly pilloried in the press.

This means that in high visibility cases the lawyer is expected to communicate information to the media.

The ABA rules and the Supreme Court obviously recognize that unanswered publicity outside the courtroom can be as harmful to a client as what goes on inside.

Litigation communication specialists -- who know the law and the legal process -- work with attorneys to offer clients a public defense that does not step over the ethical line.