Should Lawyers Be Fined for Viewing Jurors’ LinkedIn Profiles?
U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick has prohibited the use of LinkedIn for juror research and fined one law firm $10,000 last week.
The reason? People get a notification when somebody views their profile.
The Northern District of California judge prohibited the use of LinkedIn even when the notification stated “Anonymous” and didn’t identify who was viewing the profile.
This issue highlights how modern technology intersects with juror privacy and attorney ethics. Some judges worry that even an anonymous LinkedIn or social media “view” could appear to jurors as improper contact, potentially influencing their perception of the case or the attorneys involved.
For this reason, certain courts have issued standing orders barring lawyers and their staff from researching jurors on platforms that generate viewer notifications.
For example, in United States v. Juror No. One, 866 F. Supp. 2d 442 (E.D. Pa. 2011), the court emphasized that any form of communication, direct or indirect, with jurors could be construed as inappropriate. Although this case predated LinkedIn’s widespread use, later ethics opinions applied similar reasoning to digital interactions.
The New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA) Formal Opinion 743 (2011) and the American Bar Association’s Formal Opinion 466 (2014) both addressed this topic. The ABA concluded that lawyers may passively review a juror’s publicly available online information, but must avoid any action that notifies the juror of the attorney’s viewing activity.
Because LinkedIn’s platform automatically notifies users when their profile has been viewed (unless the viewer uses a truly anonymous browsing mode), even the so-called “Anonymous” view setting can raise ethical concerns if it leaves any trace or if the court perceives it as contact.
Some judges, therefore, err on the side of caution by prohibiting any LinkedIn searches of jurors altogether, regardless of the setting used.
Personally, I don’t agree with the judge’s call. If the information is public, it is public. Why should it matter if you get an “Anonymous” viewing notification?
From a legal ethics standpoint, however, the distinction lies not in whether the information is public but in whether accessing it creates a communication (even an unintentional one) with a juror or prospective juror.
The Model Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly Rule 3.5(b), prohibit lawyers from communicating with jurors during trial unless authorized by law or court order. Thus, even a minor notification could arguably violate that rule or at least undermine the appearance of impartiality.
Attorneys who wish to research jurors or potential jurors are generally advised to use methods that do not generate notifications or digital footprints. Many ethics committees recommend reviewing only static, publicly available content through search engines or social media tools that do not alert the user being researched.
Ultimately, whether such activity is permitted depends on the jurisdiction and the presiding judge’s specific orders.
What does everyone else think? Join the conversation with me here.