Social Media Research On Prospective Jurors: Navigating Evolving Ethical Boundaries

Recent Sanctions Highlight the Need for Clear Protocols

An AmLaw 50 firm recently acknowledged violating—through a litigation services vendor—a standing order regarding juror background research. The resulting sanction of $10,000 and industry press as well as social media coverage of the vendor's misstep serve as a critical reminder that the rules governing attorney investigation of potential jurors vary significantly by jurisdiction—and sometimes by individual judge. As social media participation has become ubiquitous, the question of what constitutes permissible research versus improper communication grows increasingly complex. Expectations of the lengths attorneys can and should go to in efforts to identify and weed out biased jurors are also changing. As technology transforms what is possible in juror research, the gap between available tools and permissible practices continues to widen. If generative AI can immediately provide detailed summaries of the