The investigation into alleged leaks of secret grand jury information by Attorney General Kathleen Kane has a new offshoot: a look into whether a once-sealed order temporarily staying any prosecution of Kane was improperly published.

The latest probe, first reported Tuesday afternoon by Philly.com, is referenced in a new batch of documents that were unsealed in the Kane case on Feb. 6.

The apparent target of the new inquiry, Kane spokesman Lanny Davis, denied any intentional wrongdoing Tuesday, asserting that he thought all relevant seals were lifted by the time he shared the stay order with reporters on Jan. 22.

The court itself had authorized a public announcement of the stay on any prosecution of Kane -- issued Jan. 21 -- by its spokesman James Koval that same afternoon.

But the order itself was still under seal at the time Davis shared it.

Four days later, in an order issued Jan. 26, the court said it was referring the alleged disclosure of the sealed order to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, a state agency that investigates violations of professional rules of conduct by lawyers.

The court's referral does not identify any specific suspect in the disclosure of the stay, and staffers at the Office of Disciplinary Counsel could not be reached for comment for this story.

But Davis, who is a licensed attorney, confirmed in an interview with PennLive on Tuesday night that he is the subject of the inquiry and said he has provided a written explanation for his action to the state agency.

Davis said he did not mean to defy the court.

As proof, he pointed to the open, on-the-record distribution of the stay order to dozens of reporters that day, during a conference call that he initially hoped would focus on a different aspect of the Kane case.

PennLive reporters, among others, received the emailed statement at 5:15 p.m., Jan. 22 from the Washington, D.C.-based Davis on various developments in the underlying leaks case.

Included as an attachment was the court's stay order, with the notation "sealed" in the upper right corner.

Davis also noted that on Jan. 20 -- before deciding on the stay of prosecution issue -- the court had issued a separate order opening all of the files received up to that point pertaining to Kane's challenge to the special prosecutors' work.

The existence of that order, Davis said, also led to his belief that any seals had been lifted.

The Jan. 21 order contains only its declaration of the stay on prosecution, which Koval had confirmed.

But coming in the context of an underlying case that hinges on alleged violations of grand jury secrecy, and given that the complainant in this matter is members of the state's highest court, the issue bears watching.

If the case is referred to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court, Davis could face a punishment ranging from an informal admonition to disbarment.

But it is, at best, a sideshow to Kane's fate.

The main event there is now in March, when the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the larger challenge by Kane's attorneys to the validity of the appointment of the special prosecutor who, according to the record established to date, has recommended that embattled attorney general be charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, among other charges.