Why Federal Judge Fined Alston & Bird $10,000 for LinkedIn Jury Research
In an increasingly digital world, the ethical boundaries of jury research are constantly being tested. A recent case involving the prominent law firm Alston & Bird highlights the potential pitfalls of online investigations during voir dire. U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick fined the firm $10,000 for violating a standing order against researching potential jurors on LinkedIn, underscoring the importance of understanding and adhering to specific court regulations regarding juror contact.
Table of contents
The Standing Order and Its Rationale
Judge Orrick, presiding in the Northern District of California, had a clear standing order in place: lawyers were prohibited from researching potential jurors by viewing their LinkedIn profiles. The core reason behind this order lies in LinkedIn’s notification system. When someone views a LinkedIn profile, the user is typically notified of the viewer’s identity. Judge Orrick considered this notification a form of prohibited contact with a potential juror before the trial commenced.
The judge articulated his view on the matter, stating that while publicly available information is generally “fair game” for lawyers preparing for voir dire, ethical duties prevent them from inadvertently contacting prospective jurors. Therefore, any investigative technique that alerts a juror that their information is being reviewed is deemed inappropriate and a violation of the court’s order. This stance aims to maintain the impartiality of the jury selection process and prevent any undue influence or perceived intimidation.
The Alston & Bird Incident: A Breakdown
The situation unfolded during a patent infringement case where Alston & Bird represented GoPro. The firm hired a jury consultant to assist in the voir dire process. Unfortunately, Alston & Bird failed to adequately inform the consultant about Judge Orrick’s specific standing order regarding LinkedIn research. The consultant, in turn, hired an investigator who proceeded to use LinkedIn, alongside other publicly available sources, to gather information on potential jurors.
Upon discovering the violation, a lawyer at Alston & Bird took immediate action. Recognizing the severity of the breach, she promptly notified Judge Orrick and shared the information obtained with opposing counsel. Crucially, she withheld the information from the lawyer at her firm who was actively conducting voir dire. This responsible action mitigated potential damage and demonstrated a commitment to transparency and ethical conduct, even after the violation had occurred.
Consequences and the Broader Implications
Despite the lawyer’s proactive response, Judge Orrick decided to impose the $10,000 fine on Alston & Bird. This penalty served as a clear message emphasizing the importance of adhering to court orders and ensuring that all parties involved in the legal process, including consultants and investigators, are fully aware of and compliant with those orders. The judge reaffirmed his belief in the appropriateness of his standing order, highlighting its necessity in safeguarding the integrity of the jury selection process.
Beyond the financial penalty, this case serves as a cautionary tale for law firms and legal professionals across the country. It underscores the need for comprehensive training and clear communication regarding ethical guidelines and court-specific regulations concerning jury research. As social media and online platforms become increasingly prevalent in everyday life, the lines between permissible investigation and inappropriate contact can easily become blurred. Law firms must proactively establish robust protocols to prevent similar violations from occurring.
The Underlying Patent Case
While the focus of the fine was on the LinkedIn violation, it’s worth noting the context of the case itself. The patent infringement suit involved Contour IP Holding and GoPro, with GoPro ultimately being ordered to pay $8.2 million in damages. This amount was significantly less than the $174 million Contour had initially sought. The outcome of the underlying case, while separate from the ethical violation, highlights the high stakes involved in intellectual property litigation and the importance of thorough preparation and ethical conduct throughout the legal process.
Moving Forward: Best Practices for Jury Research
The Alston & Bird case offers valuable lessons for law firms and legal teams involved in jury selection. Here are some best practices to consider:
- Thorough Training: Ensure that all lawyers, consultants, and investigators are fully trained on ethical guidelines and court-specific rules regarding jury research.
- Clear Communication: Establish clear communication channels to disseminate information about standing orders and other relevant regulations.
- Written Protocols: Develop written protocols outlining permissible and prohibited research activities.
- Regular Monitoring: Implement a system for regularly monitoring research activities to ensure compliance with ethical guidelines and court orders.
- Proactive Disclosure: Encourage prompt and transparent disclosure of any potential violations.
By implementing these best practices, law firms can minimize the risk of ethical violations and maintain the integrity of the jury selection process. The digital age presents new challenges to traditional legal practices, and it is crucial for legal professionals to adapt and evolve their strategies to ensure compliance with ethical standards and court regulations.
Conclusion
The fine levied against Alston & Bird serves as a stark reminder of the importance of ethical conduct and adherence to court orders in the digital age. As technology continues to evolve, the legal profession must remain vigilant in adapting its practices to ensure the fairness and impartiality of the justice system. By prioritizing ethical training, clear communication, and robust monitoring systems, law firms can navigate the complexities of online jury research and uphold the integrity of the legal process.
Disclaimer: The information in this article is for general guidance only and may contain affiliate links. Always verify details with official sources.
Explore more: related articles.
