A Pennsylvania Hearing Committee has found that an attorney’s communications with a witness in a criminal case violated Rules 3.(d) and  8.4(d) and (d) and recommends a public reprimand

At their heart, Respondent’s actions amount to coercion and intimidation despite any attempts to otherwise characterize them. There could be no other reasonable explanation for the offer of the Corvette vehicle, the timing of that offer, the threat regarding the possibility of lateral charges against her, and the multiple attempts to contact her over a short period of time. Respondent first made the offer one day prior a scheduled preliminary hearing, which is far too much a coincidence to explain away as a global resolution of disputes that might exist between the Respondent’s client and Ms. Lyles. Instead, any reasonable person would conclude that the sole purpose of the offer was to induce her to not appear and/or to testify in the preliminary hearing. The fact that he then repeated the offer to Ms. Lyles in the witness room of the building at which the preliminary hearing was to occur, after Respondent waived the hearing on his client’s behalf, further illustrates the boldness of Respondent’s disregard for the Rules of Professional Conduct, given that the conversation occurred in private and in the witness room of the very building where the preliminary hearing  was to occur. Ms. Lyles’ testimony at the Disciplinary Hearing was credible, and the Hearing Committee was not persuaded by Respondent’s argument that he was attempting to reach a global resolution of all claims between his client and Ms. Lyles