(a) Contacting Prospective Jurors and Jurors Before and During Trial.
(1) A lawyer shall not knowingly communicate, either directly or through another, with a
juror or prospective juror unless authorized to do so by law or court order. 6
(2) A lawyer may not, either personally or through another, send an access request to a
juror or prospective juror through any electronic social media. An access request is
a communication to a juror seeking access to a juror or prospective juror’s social
media for the purpose of obtaining information about a juror or potential juror which
the juror or potential juror has not made public or that would be the type of ex parte
communication prohibited by subsection (1) of this local rule. 7
(3) Unless otherwise limited by law, court order, or subsections (1) and (2) of this local
rule, a lawyer may review, in advance of or during a trial, a juror’s or prospective
juror’s public Internet presence. “Internet presence” includes but is not limited to
postings by the juror or prospective juror on electronic social media that are publicly
available and that do not require an access request. 8
(4) In the course of reviewing a juror’s or potential juror’s Internet presence, if a lawyer
discovers evidence of juror or potential juror misconduct, the lawyer must disclose
the misconduct or potential misconduct to the court as soon as possible. 9
(b) Interviewing Jurors After Trial.
(1) No party or their attorney shall, personally or through another person, contact,
interview, examine, or question any juror or alternate, except on leave of Court
granted upon good cause shown. If a party believes in good faith that grounds for
6 This is drawn from the Louisiana Rule of Professional Conduct 3.5(b), ABA Model Rule 3.5(b) and ABA
Formal Opinion 466.
7 This is drawn verbatim from ABA Formal Opinion 466 except that “subsection (1) of this local rule”
replaces “Model Rule 3.5(b).”
8 This is drawn from ABA Formal Opinion 466. See also Jan L. Jacobowitz and John G. Browning, Legal
Ethics and Social Media, A Practitioner’s Handbook, American Bar Association, 2017, at 96. (“[R]esearching
the social media of prospective jurors, and continuing to monitor social media activity during trial, can be
vital to seating an honest, unbiased jury, and to ensuring that any online misconduct is promptly brought to
the court’s attention.”) One writer has suggested that “it is not only permissible for lawyers to research jurors
before and during trial using social media according to currently existing professional standards, but they
may have an ethical obligation to do so.” Jessica L. Boylan, “Jury Duty”: The Ethical Obligations of
Attorneys Researching Jurors Using Social Media Technology, 29 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 867, 869 (2016).
9 This is drawn from ABA Formal Opinion 466.
legal challenge to a verdict exist, he may move for an order permitting an interview
of a juror or jurors to determine whether the verdict is subject to challenge. 10
(2) No juror has any obligation to speak to any person about any case and may refuse
all interviews or comments;
(3) No person may make repeated requests for interviews or questions after a juror has
expressed the desire not to be interviewed;
(4) No juror or alternate who consents to be interviewed may disclose any information
with respect to the following:
(A) The specific vote of any juror other than the juror being interviewed;
(B) The deliberations of the jury; or
(C) Evidence of improprieties in the jury's deliberation.
