gag orders.pdf

Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law mons at Loyola MarymountUniversity and Loyola Law SchoolLoyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law ReviewLaw Reviews1-1-1997Gag Orders & (and) Attorney Discipline Rules:Why Not Base the Former upon the LatterDouglas E. MirellThis Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at mons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola LawSchool. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review by an authorized administrator of mons ***@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please ******@ CitationDouglas E. Mirell,Gag Orders & (and) Attorney Discipline Rules: Why Not Base the Former upon the Latter, 17 Loy. . Ent. L. Rev. 353(1997).Available at: ORDERS & ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE RULES:WHY NOT BASE THE FORMER UPON THELATTER?Douglas E. Mirell*I. INTRODUCTIONWith increasing frequency, judges throughout the United States areimposing (or threatening to impose) ever-more Draconian forms of priorrestraints upon the out-of-court statements of attorneys and other trialparticipants. These constraints upon extrajudicial speech--commonlyknown as judicial gag orders-typically have the intent and effect of limitingwhat lawyers, parties and others (including, for example, the parties' expertwitnesses and jury consultants) may say outside of the courtroom about thetestimony and other evidence being adduced at trial, at least until those trialcourt proceedings are * Douglas E. Mirell is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Loeb & Loeb LLP. Mr. Mirell isa civil litigator with an extensive media/intellectual property/entertainment law practice,concentrating on First Amendment issues. Mr. Mirell made numerous appearances on behalf of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Southern California before Judge Lance A. Ito in the double-murder trial of Orenthal James Simpson to argue for television coverage and other fo