Courts have been dealing for a while now with jurors discussing the trials they’re deciding through postings on websites accessible to the public and electronic social media that allow restrictions on access, such as Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn and Twitter. Trial judges generally try to restrict such activities with admonitions in their instructions to the jury.

But as more and more lawyers are looking to websites and social media to learn more about both sitting jurors and prospective jurors, they, too, need some guidance on just how far they may go.

The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility offered its advice in Formal Opinion 466 (PDF), issued April 24. Formal opinions are based on the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which provide the substantive basis for binding rules governing lawyers in every state and the District of Columbia, although the rules in California follow a different format.

Related Posts

‘Flash Sale’ Website Defeats Class Action Claim With Mandatory Arbitration Clause
May 20, 2014

Gilt implemented its membership agreement using a standard mandatory clickthrough procedure with links to the actual terms....

Social Media Request for Production That Got It Right
May 18, 2014

Requesting social media relevant to a lawsuit should be done as standard operating procedure now. However, some attorney...

Can Social Media Lead to Mandatory Arbitration?
May 7, 2014

Could “liking” a company on Facebook mean you’re agreeing to its binding arbitration clause? According to Thomas DeMicco of...