The only excuse I can fathom for this kind of behavior is if the accuser's lawyer knows something we don't know: that DA Vance has already decided to drop the charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Otherwise, this interview violates every ethical rule in the book. As the Supreme Court said in Shephard v. Maxwell:

Collaboration between counsel and the press as to information affecting the fairness of a criminal trial is not only subject to regulation, but is highly censurable and worthy of disciplinary measures.

....Few, if any, interests under the Constitution are more fundamental than the right to a fair trial by ‘impartial’ jurors, and an outcome affected by extrajudicial statements would violate that fundamental right. Even if a fair trial can ultimately be ensured through voir dire, change of venue, or some other device, these measures entail serious costs to the system.

If Vance doesn't join in a defense motion to prevent this accuser from publicly claiming DSK is guilty and publicizing her version of the details of the encounter, I hope the judge steps in on his own. “As the Supreme Court has said, legal trials are not like elections, to be won through the use of the meeting-hall, the radio, and the newspaper.” (Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 271)(1941).

Her lawyer is far afield if he thinks his client's statements are covered by the safe harbor provision of the ethics rules due to adverse publicity about her veracity and character. Her response must be limited to what is necessary to rebut those attacks, and telling her version of what happened in the hotel room and saying DSK should go to jail is far beyond that.