[RS]

I would think you would need a ruling that says that the (non-?) plea bargain info should not have been released before you go after someones ethics in releasing it...
Otherwise the point appears to be moot.
So Blacks next step should be sueing regarding the release, correct ?

[longtermmemmory]

I submit he has three options (and NO it is not moot)

The ethics log does provide grounds to indicate the SA had guidance contrary to the actual action he took. You don't need written ruling first. Had this been a private attorney the Bar would have intiated their own investigation based on the TV publicity alone. (remember they suspended the attorneys soliciting cases after the valujet case within 24 hours for violating the 30 contact ban.)

The CYA letter the AG also supports the fact the SA was acting on their own.

1. File a bar complaint of unethical conduct.
(the advantage of the bar complaint is that medical records can be kept private if they become probative.)
2. As for the liability suit, I don't know if it would be worth it.
3. File a motion to dismiss (if charges are filed) because the release of the letter was so unfairly prejudicial as to demand the sanction.

The next step is to see what happens with the appeals courts. If the SA was smart, (not the case) he would cut his losses now. At this point, they have lost their opportunity to settle the case and still look good.

The SA is screwed. Ethically screwed, publicity screwed, and quagmire screwed.