The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct affects everyone… most certainly the unaware.

How would the alumni of Penn State University like to see the resurrection of the legacy of Joe Paterno?

Rule 1.6 prevented criminal prosecution of Jerry Sandusky and resulted in the fall of Joe Paterno for supposed inaction. Let’s hope they have not melted down that statue.


The Rule requires judicial misconduct to be concealed and ignored at every level of law enforcement within the state. Federal prosecutors rarely get involved unless invited by an Attorney General. This is not about immunity… it is all about misconduct. Unlawful misconduct. CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT.

Not one lawyer on or off campus could do anything to restore the reputation of Paterno. They are bouind by Rule 1.6 and face disbarrment for any violation of it.

BTW, Plaintiffs did not go to Penn State. Plaintiffs are also not lawyers. And they have demonstrated standing and a proper cause for relief in Federal Court.

Paterno was a legend who did not deserve to be destroyed. There was nothing he could have done to cause the legal prosecution of Jerry Sandusky. Rule 1.6 prevented lawful action to prosecute, but it also excused the misdirection and the tragedies which occurred to the direct and indirect victims.




No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: