MIAMI (AP) – A federal judge found Wednesday that a lawyer for suspected al-Qaida operative Jose Padilla violated a court order by leaking sensitive wiretap transcripts to The New York Times but stopped short of taking any disciplinary action.

Instead, U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke ordered all defense lawyers in the case to sign papers indicating that they understand and will follow rules barring disclosure of certain evidence.

Cooke also said she might hold in contempt of court anyone – she specifically mentioned several reporters attending Wednesday’s hearing – who receives such prohibited material.

“The lash is about to fall on all,” Cooke said at a hearing. “We’re going to have a trial, as much as possible as we can, a trial on the evidence, and not on anything else.”

The leaked transcripts documented seven telephone conversations on which Padilla’s voice is heard that were intercepted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Defense lawyers have said that Padilla is never overheard discussing any violent acts and that many of the conversations involve family matters, casting doubt on the strength of the government’s case.

While not classified, they were covered under Cooke’s order barring disclosure. Michael Caruso, one of three Miami-based public defenders on Padilla’s defense team, acknowledged that one of them was responsible for providing the material to the Times for a front-page story published Jan. 4.

“This was a simple misunderstanding, an honest mistake, and it has been rectified,” Caruso said. “Your honor can rest assured that this matter is at an end. There have been no further disclosures.”

The other public defenders representing Padilla are Anthony Natale and Orlando do Campo. The identity of the leaker has been disclosed to Cooke in a sealed filing, but it was not made public, and none of the lawyers would name the person responsible.

Prosecutors had wanted Cooke to put the lawyers under oath and begin a formal investigation, with Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Frazier terming the action an “outrageous” attempt to influence public perceptions of the case, including those of potential jurors.

“What was the point? It was clearly calculated to influence the jury of public opinion and try this case there,” Frazier said. “It was a deliberate violation.”

The Times has declined comment on the controversy.

Padilla, 36, was already famous around the world before he became part of a Miami terrorism support cell case – largely because of previous U.S. government actions and statements.

Padilla is accused along with two others of being part of a North American cell that provided cash, supplies and recruits to Islamic extremist causes worldwide. Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was accused after his 2002 arrest of being on an al-Qaida mission to detonate a radioactive dirty bomb in a major U.S. city, but those allegations are not part of the Miami case.

Padilla was held without charge for 3 1/2 years at a Navy brig after President Bush designated him as an enemy combatant. He was added to the Miami case in late 2005 amid an escalating legal battle over the president’s powers to indefinitely detain Padilla and others during wartime.

Padilla and his co-defendants have pleaded not guilty. Trial is scheduled to begin April 16, after several postponements, and that could hinge on whether Padilla is found competent. His lawyers say he is suffering mental problems stemming from his long, isolated military confinement.