A defensible juror-research practice is not a policy that says "public records are fair game." That's the easy part. The hard part is proving, after the fact, exactly what was searched, when, by whom, through which platform, and what happened after something potentially disqualifying popped up on a screen. If you can't answer those questions with a contemporaneous record, you're improvising in front of a judge who is deciding whether your firm just committed an ethics violation.
Most lawyers who do juror research have never built a log for it. They run searches the morning of voir dire, maybe jot a note, and move on. That works fine until a juror's profile shows something relevant to the case, or worse, until a platform sends that juror a notification that someone looked them up. At that point you need a record, not a memory.
Why a juror-research log matters more than the search itself
ABA Formal Opinion 466 draws a clear line: passive review of publicly available juror information, including social media, is permitted without an access request.[2] Sending a friend request, a follow, a connection request, or anything that requires the juror's permission is different. That's an ex parte communication, and Model Rule 3.5 prohibits unauthorized ex parte communications with jurors and prospective jurors.[1]
The line sounds simple. In practice it isn't, because platforms don't always tell you in advance what counts as "passive." LinkedIn tells people who viewed their profile. Instagram shows who viewed a story. Some platforms send a notification the moment you view content, even if you never clicked follow. Formal Opinion 466 itself recognizes that a platform-generated notification can be a communication even when the lawyer never intended to contact the juror.[4] That means you can follow every rule you know and still trigger a notice you didn't mean to send.
This is exactly why a log matters more than the search. If a judge asks what happened, "I don't remember exactly, I think I searched her on Facebook" is not an answer anyone wants to give. A dated, specific log is.
Governing boundaries before you search
Before any juror research begins, confirm which jurisdiction's rules apply and whether the trial judge has issued a standing order on juror research. Some courts prohibit it outright during trial. Others permit it with conditions. Don't assume ABA guidance controls if your state bar or your judge has said otherwise.
State and local guidance can be stricter than the ABA's position. New York City Bar Formal Opinion 2012-02 warns that research is impermissible when the lawyer knows it will trigger a communication to the juror, and cautions that even an inadvertent notification can create an ethical problem.[5] "I didn't mean to" is not necessarily a defense if you knew, or should have known, that the search method you chose was likely to notify the subject.
Practical takeaway: identify the governing jurisdiction, the local ethics opinions, and the judge's specific voir dire protocol before anyone on your team opens a laptop. This is a five-minute check that prevents a mid-trial sidebar.
Building the operational juror-research log
The log is not a formality. It's the document that turns "we did passive research" into something a judge can actually verify. Use one contemporaneous entry per juror or venire member, built at the time of the search, not reconstructed afterward from memory.
Each entry should capture:
Case, court, judge, and jury-panel identifier, so the log ties to a specific proceeding.
Researcher, supervising lawyer, date, and start and end time with time zone, so there's no ambiguity about when the search happened relative to any later notification.
Sources searched: court dockets, property and business records, campaign finance filings, news databases, search engines, and each social platform checked individually, not lumped together as "social media."
Search terms and identifiers used, including name variants, employer, city, and anything pulled from the juror questionnaire.
Platform status for each source: public, login required, connection request required, or unclear. This single field does most of the work in showing the search stayed passive.
Access method: ordinary browser, firm account, investigator, vendor, or other intermediary. If a vendor or investigator touched the account, document exactly how.
Platform behavior checked before the search ran: profile-view notices, story-view lists, read receipts, follow notifications, recommendation prompts, and default messaging settings. Checking this before searching is what lets you later say the notification, if one occurred, was unintended.
Result: no hit, possible match, confirmed match, or irrelevant match.
Evidence preserved: screenshot, PDF, downloaded docket, URL or locator, capture timestamp, and a hash or consistent file name so the capture can't later be questioned as altered.
Authentication notes: why you believe the account belongs to the actual juror, and whether the content was visible without requesting access.
Escalation: whether the finding went to a supervising lawyer, ethics counsel, court disclosure, or required no action.
Disposition: attached to the file, withheld as irrelevant, or destroyed under the firm's case-preservation policy.
Separating raw preservation from your analysis
Keep the raw capture separate from your notes about it. Save the original screenshot or PDF before you annotate, highlight, or write analysis on top of it. Preserve the visible date, account name, platform, and surrounding context in that original file, and never crop or alter the only copy you have. If a judge later asks to see what counsel actually viewed, you want to hand over the unaltered capture, with your analysis as a separate work product document.
Also record the searches that failed. If you checked a platform and found nothing, or couldn't access a private account, write that down too. A log that only records hits can look, in hindsight, like it's implying broader access than you actually had. A log that records dead ends is more credible, not less.
What to disclose and when
Disclosure isn't optional once research turns up something material. ABA Formal Opinion 466 states that discovering criminal or fraudulent juror conduct requires reasonable remedial measures, which can include disclosure to the court when necessary.[2] The categories that typically require prompt disclosure: apparent juror misconduct, criminal or fraudulent conduct, material nondisclosure during voir dire, improper outside research by the juror, prohibited outside influence, or facts that bear directly on impartiality.
The instinct for a lot of lawyers is to sit on a finding and decide later whether it matters. That's the wrong instinct. If the finding bears on impartiality or compliance with the court's instructions, disclose it promptly and let the judge decide what to do with it. Sitting on it creates two problems instead of one: the underlying issue, and the appearance that you weighed whether disclosure helped or hurt your case before deciding to raise it.
A disclosure script for routine findings
When passive research produces something worth raising, a short, neutral statement to the court works better than an improvised explanation:
"Your Honor, counsel conducted a documented passive review of publicly available sources under the court's instructions. The search produced information potentially bearing on juror impartiality or compliance with the court's orders. No access request or intentional communication was made. The attached log and preserved capture identify the source, timestamp, and platform behavior. Counsel requests an appropriate inquiry outside the jury's presence and will avoid further contact."
That statement does three things: it confirms the research was authorized and passive, it hands the judge a verifiable record instead of a description, and it asks for the right next step, an inquiry outside the jury's presence, rather than arguing the merits yourself.
A disclosure script for accidental contact
Accidental notifications happen even with careful teams. If a platform appears to have notified a juror that someone viewed their profile, don't guess at an explanation on the spot. Use something close to this:
"Counsel learned that the platform may have generated an automated notification. The contact was unintended; no message or access request was sent. Counsel preserved the relevant settings and timeline, stopped the search, and requests the court's direction regarding disclosure and any remedial step."
Notice what both scripts avoid: they don't argue that the research was harmless, and they don't minimize the issue. They state facts, point to the preserved record, and ask the court what to do next. That's the posture that protects you.
Platform-specific pitfalls across case types
The exposure here looks different depending on what kind of case and client you're working for, but the underlying discipline is the same.
In plaintiff's personal injury or civil work, juror research often focuses on employer, prior litigation history, and public commentary on tort reform or insurance. The pitfall is usually LinkedIn, where a profile view is visible to the subject by default unless privacy settings are changed, and where "who viewed your profile" features have burned more than one legal team into an accidental notification they never intended.
In criminal defense, the research often centers on whether a juror has law enforcement connections, prior jury service, or public statements about crime in the venue. The platform risk here is Facebook and Instagram groups, particularly local community or neighborhood-watch groups, where membership status and activity can be semi-private and where even viewing a public post can trigger a notification depending on the juror's settings.
In corporate defense, research frequently touches campaign finance records, business filings, and professional networks tied to the industry in the case. The pitfall is less about accidental notification and more about scope: pulling records that go well beyond what's relevant to impartiality can look, in a disclosure context, like the kind of intrusive investigation courts are wary of authorizing.
In prosecution, research into jurors is subject to the same ex parte restrictions as the defense, and prosecutors carry an added institutional exposure: a disclosure failure by a prosecutor's office tends to draw more scrutiny because of the state's broader disclosure obligations generally. The same log and the same disclosure habits apply regardless of which side of the room you're sitting on.
Across all four, the rule that matters most is the same one: never investigate further through the juror, an intermediary, a fake account, or a connection request. If passive review surfaces a question you want answered, that question goes to the judge through voir dire or a disclosure request, not back through another search.
FAQ
Does viewing a juror's public LinkedIn profile count as an ex parte communication? Under ABA Formal Opinion 466, passive review of publicly available information does not itself count as an ex parte communication.[2] But if the platform notifies the juror that someone viewed their profile, that notification can be treated as a communication even though you didn't intend to send one.[4] Check a platform's notification settings before you search it, and log that check.
What should I do if I accidentally trigger a notification to a juror? Stop the search, preserve the settings and timeline that show what happened, and disclose it to the court promptly using a neutral factual statement rather than an explanation of intent. Don't attempt to contact the juror to explain or apologize; that compounds the problem.
Is a vendor or investigator's juror research covered by the same rules as mine? Yes. The ethical obligations that apply to a lawyer apply to anyone acting on the lawyer's behalf, including investigators and third-party vendors. The access method field in your log should identify exactly who ran each search and how.
How long should juror-research logs and captures be preserved? That depends on your firm's case-preservation policy and any court order governing the matter, so check both before setting a retention schedule. At minimum, preserve the log and captures through any post-trial motions and appeal period.
Does a stricter state or local ethics opinion override ABA Formal Opinion 466? Local and state authority controls in that jurisdiction. New York City Bar Formal Opinion 2012-02 is an example of guidance that goes further than the ABA position, cautioning against research that the lawyer knows will trigger a communication.[5] Confirm your jurisdiction's specific rules and any standing order from the trial judge before relying on the ABA's framework alone.
Should every "no hit" search be logged, or only the ones that find something? Log every search, including the ones that find nothing. A record that only shows positive hits can look incomplete if a judge later asks what else was checked. Recording dead ends and access barriers makes the log more credible, not less.
Keeping this kind of log by hand for an entire panel is tedious, and tedious processes are the ones that get skipped under trial deadlines. That's part of why we built StrikeList AI with structured juror-research tracking built into the workflow, so the log gets created as searches happen instead of reconstructed from memory after a judge asks.
Notes
- American Bar Association, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.5, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_5_impartiality_decorum_of_the_tribunal/
- American Bar Association, Formal Opinion 466: Lawyer Reviewing Jurors' Internet Presence, April 24, 2014, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/formal_opinion_466.pdf
- American Bar Association, Formal Opinion 466: Lawyer Reviewing Jurors' Internet Presence, April 24, 2014, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/formal_opinion_466.pdf
- American Bar Association, Formal Opinion 466: Lawyer Reviewing Jurors' Internet Presence, April 24, 2014, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/formal_opinion_466.pdf
- New York City Bar Association, Formal Opinion 2012-02: Jury Research and Social Media, 2012, https://www.nycbar.org/member-and-career-services/committees/reports-listing/reports/detail/formal-opinion-2012-02-jury-research-and-social-media
See how StrikeList AI fits your next trial.
Buy a single trial and start today, or request a short demo to see the workflow on a real panel.