Why Federal Judge Fined Alston & Bird $10,000 for Jury Research on LinkedIn
In a notable case highlighting the ethical boundaries of jury research in the digital age, the prominent law firm Alston & Bird was fined $10,000 by U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick. The fine stemmed from a violation of Judge Orrick’s standing order, which prohibits lawyers from researching potential jurors by viewing their LinkedIn profiles. This incident raises important questions about the permissible scope of pre-trial investigation and the potential for inadvertent juror contact.
Table of contents
The Standing Order and LinkedIn’s Notification Feature
Judge Orrick’s standing order in the Northern District of California explicitly forbids attorneys from viewing potential jurors’ LinkedIn profiles. The core reason behind this prohibition lies in LinkedIn’s notification system. When someone views a LinkedIn profile, the user receives a notification indicating who has accessed their information. Judge Orrick considers this notification a form of prohibited contact with a potential juror before the trial commences. He believes that while publicly available information is generally fair game for lawyers preparing for voir dire, they must avoid investigative techniques that directly notify a juror of the review.
This perspective underscores the delicate balance between a lawyer’s right to prepare a case thoroughly and the ethical obligation to avoid any appearance of influencing or contacting potential jurors outside of the courtroom setting. The notification feature on LinkedIn blurs the lines, making passive research potentially problematic. The judge’s order aims to preserve the integrity of the jury selection process by preventing any perceived or actual attempts to influence jurors before they are even selected.
The Alston & Bird Incident: A Chain of Miscommunication
The violation occurred 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 inform the consultant about Judge Orrick’s standing order regarding LinkedIn research. The consultant, in turn, engaged an investigator who used LinkedIn, among other publicly available sources, to gather information on potential jurors. This oversight created a direct conflict with the judge’s explicit instructions.
Upon discovering the violation, an attorney at Alston & Bird promptly notified Judge Orrick and shared the gathered information with opposing counsel. Crucially, the information was not shared with the lawyer at Alston & Bird who was directly conducting the voir dire. Judge Orrick acknowledged that the attorney acted responsibly in reporting the breach. Despite this, he proceeded with the fine, emphasizing his conviction that the standing order is necessary to protect the integrity of the jury selection process. This demonstrates that even unintentional violations of court orders can carry significant consequences for law firms.
The Broader Implications and Ethical Considerations
The Alston & Bird case serves as a cautionary tale for law firms and legal professionals regarding the use of social media for jury research. It highlights the importance of clear communication and thorough training within law firms to ensure compliance with court orders and ethical guidelines. Law firms must proactively educate their employees and consultants about the specific rules and regulations governing jury research in each jurisdiction where they practice.
Furthermore, the case raises broader ethical considerations about the evolving landscape of jury research in the digital age. As social media platforms become increasingly prevalent sources of information, lawyers must navigate the ethical complexities of accessing and using this data responsibly. The key lies in striking a balance between thorough preparation and avoiding any actions that could be perceived as an attempt to influence or intimidate potential jurors. This requires a deep understanding of ethical rules, court orders, and the potential impact of online research on the jury selection process.
Conclusion
The $10,000 fine levied against Alston & Bird underscores the importance of adhering to court orders and ethical guidelines when conducting jury research. Judge Orrick’s decision highlights the potential pitfalls of using social media platforms like LinkedIn in the voir dire process and emphasizes the need for clear communication and comprehensive training within law firms. As technology continues to evolve, legal professionals must remain vigilant in navigating the ethical complexities of online research to ensure the fairness and integrity of the judicial system.
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.
