Can a lawyer contact jurors after the verdict to ask what they thought of the case or to look for grounds for appeal?

Plain-English summary

After a verdict has been rendered and the jury discharged, a lawyer wants to interview jurors to learn what did or did not impress them about the lawyer's arguments and to determine whether any juror conduct might give the lawyer an additional argument on appeal. The opinion asks whether the lawyer may initiate that contact, and answers no.

The opinion sets out Oregon RPC 3.5(c), which bars communicating with a juror after discharge of the jury if the communication is prohibited by law or court order, if the juror has made known a desire not to communicate, or if the communication involves misrepresentation, coercion, duress, or harassment, and Oregon RPC 3.5(e), which requires promptly revealing improper juror-related conduct to the court. It then points to Oregon UTCR 3.120 and Local Rule 48-2 of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, both of which generally prohibit a lawyer from initiating contact with jurors about a case they were sworn to try.

The opinion concludes that because those court rules bar the contact, initiating juror interviews would violate Oregon RPC 3.5(c)(1), which incorporates communications prohibited by law or court order. It adds that even where a court permits contact, the lawyer must still observe Oregon RPC 3.5(c)(3), which prohibits misrepresentation, coercion, duress, or harassment in any such communication.

In practice

The opinion holds that, under the Oregon rule as it stood at the time, the bar on post-verdict juror contact comes through Oregon RPC 3.5(c)(1)'s incorporation of the governing court rules (UTCR 3.120 and Local Rule 48-2), which generally forbid initiating juror contact. Per the opinion, the analysis turns on whether a court rule or order permits the contact; absent permission the lawyer may not initiate it, and any permitted contact remains subject to Oregon RPC 3.5(c)(3). Verify the current text of Oregon RPC 3.5 and the cited court rules before relying on any specific point.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer interview jurors after the verdict to learn what worked?

A: No. The opinion concludes that court rules generally bar a lawyer from initiating contact with jurors about a case they were sworn to try, and that doing so also violates Oregon RPC 3.5(c)(1).

Q: What if the lawyer is looking for grounds for appeal?

A: The opinion treats the appeal-investigation motive the same way; the bar on initiating juror contact applies regardless, unless a court rule or order permits the contact.

Q: If a court does allow juror contact, are there still limits?

A: Yes. The opinion states that even when contact is permitted, the lawyer must observe Oregon RPC 3.5(c)(3), which forbids misrepresentation, coercion, duress, or harassment.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 3.5(c) and (e) (communication with jurors and the duty to report improper juror-related conduct), corresponding to Model Rule 3.5, read together with Oregon UTCR 3.120 and Local Rule 48-2 for the District of Oregon, which supply the underlying prohibition that Oregon RPC 3.5(c)(1) incorporates.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Oregon RPC 3.5(c) and (e) / Model Rule 3.5 (communication with jurors; reporting improper conduct)

Court rules:

• Oregon UTCR 3.120 (communication with jurors)
• Local Rule 48-2, U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (no communications with jurors)

See also

• OSB Ethics Op. 2005-9: Communicating With Jurors After Trial
• OSB Ethics Op. 2005-83: Ex Parte Contact With an Administrative Law Judge
• OSB Ethics Op. 2005-84: Ex Parte Contact With a Nonparty in an OLCC Hearing

Source

• Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
• Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-143.pdf