Connection lost
Server error
GENTILE v. STATE BAR OF NEVADA Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A defense attorney was disciplined for pretrial publicity under a state bar rule. The Supreme Court held that while states can constitutionally restrict attorney speech posing a “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” to a case, the specific rule here was unconstitutionally vague.
Legal Significance: Established that states may constitutionally apply a lower First Amendment standard—“substantial likelihood of material prejudice”—to regulate the extrajudicial speech of attorneys in pending cases, a standard less stringent than the “clear and present danger” test applied to the press.
GENTILE v. STATE BAR OF NEVADA Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Attorney Dominic Gentile represented a client indicted in a high-profile case involving the theft of drugs and money from a vault company. Believing the police and prosecution were poisoning the jury pool with adverse publicity, Gentile held a press conference hours after the indictment. He proclaimed his client’s innocence, named a police detective as the likely culprit, and attacked the credibility of other potential witnesses, calling them “drug dealers and convicted money launderers.” Six months later, a jury acquitted his client. The State Bar of Nevada subsequently filed a complaint and issued a private reprimand, finding Gentile had violated Nevada Supreme Court Rule 177, which prohibits attorney speech having a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.” The rule contained a “safe harbor” provision, Rule 177(3), allowing an attorney to state “the general nature of the… defense.” Gentile challenged the disciplinary action, arguing the rule violated his First Amendment rights and was void for vagueness.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a state, consistent with the First Amendment, discipline an attorney for extrajudicial statements about a pending case under a “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” standard, and was the specific rule applied here unconstitutionally vague?
Yes, the “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” standard is constitutionally permissible for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labo
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
May a state, consistent with the First Amendment, discipline an attorney for extrajudicial statements about a pending case under a “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” standard, and was the specific rule applied here unconstitutionally vague?
Conclusion
The case affirms states' authority to regulate attorney trial publicity under the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea comm
Legal Rule
A state may constitutionally regulate the speech of lawyers representing clients in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint oc
Legal Analysis
The Court produced a fractured decision resulting in two majority holdings. A Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitati
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A state may discipline a lawyer for extrajudicial speech that has