DOJ-OGR-00004963.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 315 _ Filed 07/30/21 Page2of3 Court. Dkt. No. 314. Rule 23.1 is not so superficial nor easily circumvented. Nothing in the rule limits its application to lawyers who have formally noticed an appearance. To the contrary, as the text throughout the rule makes clear, it applies to statements made by lawyers (and others) “associated” with “pending or imminent criminal litigation.” S.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 23.1(a) (last updated Oct. 29, 2018); see also Rule 23.1(b) (“a lawyer participating in or associated with the investigation”); Rule 23.1(c) (“lawyer or law firm associated with the prosecution or defense”). An attorney need not be of record in order to be sufficiently “associated” with a case as to justify application of disciplinary rules regarding extrajudicial statements. Lawyers who have not filed a formal notice of appearance may still possess information that lends a perception by the public that their remarks on a pending case hold greater authority. See In re Hinds, 449 A.2d 483, 496 (N.J. 1982); see also People v. Buttafuoco, 599 N.Y.S.2d 419 (Nassau Cty. Ct. 1993). Such is the case with Mr. Markus’s role in the pending matter. As noted, Mr. Markus has attended a proceeding in this Court, after which he spoke to the press on Ms. Maxwell’s behalf. He has represented Ms. Maxwell on appeals of this Court’s pre-trial bail determinations. Moreover, Mr. Markus has identified himself as Ms. Maxwell’s appellate lawyer in a published op-ed discussing his opinion of the merits of this case. These facts mean that the public, which includes potential jurors, may perceive Mr. Markus as an authoritative source of information regarding the pending matter and may readily consider his remarks to be accurate and reliable. Mr. Markus is therefore ORDERED to comply with Local Criminal Rule 23.1. The Government does not ask the Court to discipline Mr. Markus based on his op-ed and the Court declines to consider whether it violated Rule 23.1 given the potential lack of clarity with respect to whether Mr. Markus was bound by the rule. The Court emphasizes that the rule DOJ-OGR-00004963