When does vigorous advocacy cross the line into a careless remark that damages a lawyers reputation?

In her latest Rechtspanorama column for the Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien (Vienna Bar), our partner Bettina Knoetzl draws the line between freedom of speech and professional duty.
The Rules of Professional Conduct grant attorneys not only the right, but also the duty, to give it their all. Austrian law (§ 9 (1) RAO) requires lawyers to conduct their cases in accordance with the law and to defend their clients’ rights against anyone with zeal, loyalty, and diligence – authorized to present, without reservation, everything useful under the law, and to employ every lawful means of attack and defense. No timid evasion, but zeal is required.
The legislature wants lawyers to be able to speak plainly. The call for occasional restraint was therefore not directed against pointed statements on the merits of a case. Anyone expected to act “with zeal” and present their case frankly must not hesitate to speak out publicly, once released from their duty of confidentiality. This special status is functionally justified and a pillar of the rule of law: effective advocacy requires tools, courage and freedom from reprisals for passionate expressions of opinion.
But there is a difference between vigorous advocacy and careless remarks likely to damage the profession’s reputation. Freedom of speech may protect both under certain circumstances – but professional duty requires only one of them.

Original column here: Link