Gag agreements with defense lawyers
Daniel Joseph Tisone v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Daniel Tisone’s petition asks whether a criminal defense lawyer’s demand that a client sign a non-disparagement agreement (a promise not to criticize someone) creates a conflict of interest or effectively denies the client a lawyer, so the client need not prove harm.
- Who it affects
- Tisone received no Supreme Court answer on whether a defendant in this situation must prove harm.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Tisone’s case came from the Eleventh Circuit and raised whether a defense lawyer could require a criminal defendant to promise not to criticize someone as a condition of representation.
Question presented
Whether an attorney’s requirement that a criminal defendant execute a non-disparagement agreement as a condition of representation creates an actual conflict of interest that presumptively prejudices the defendant under Cuyler v. Sullivan, or constitutes a constructive denial of counsel under United States v. Cronic, thereby obviating the need to prove prejudice under Strickland v. Washington?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 2 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.