Can a lawyer who wins a case invite the jurors to a celebratory party, or encourage the client to do so?

Plain-English summary

Opinion E-74-12 responded to a prospective inquiry about a practice seen in some jurisdictions: a successful attorney in civil or criminal litigation inviting all members of the jury to a victory celebration at a restaurant, with food and drink paid for by persons interested in the case's success, including the client, the attorney, and friends and associates. The committee addressed whether a lawyer could take part.

The committee pointed to DR 7-108 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and prior Canon 23, directing that a lawyer, before or during trial, abstain from communicating with jurors. It noted that DR 7-108(A) bars communicating with a member of the venire, and DR 7-108(D) provides that, after the jury's discharge, a lawyer connected with the case shall not make comments to a juror calculated to harass or embarrass the juror or to influence his future jury service. The committee concluded that the lawyer should not participate in such a celebration and should actively counsel against inviting the jury, noting that the practice might also be used for the solicitation of business.

The committee reasoned that, even if the lawyer were not present, it might appear to the public that the verdict was affected by jurors' desire to attend a celebration, and that jurors and prospective jurors might be influenced in future jury service if the prospect of a victory party were involved. A lawyer must avoid not only impropriety but the appearance of impropriety under Canon 9.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1974, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (the state's Ethics 2000 update), and it applies the former Code's DR 7-108, prior Canon 23, and Canon 9. The current counterpart governing communication with jurors and the impartiality of the tribunal is SCR 20:3.5 / Model Rule 3.5. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer who won a trial throw a party with the jurors?

A: Under this opinion, no. The committee concluded the lawyer should not participate in any such celebration and should counsel against inviting the jury, citing the prohibitions on communicating with jurors and the appearance of impropriety.

Q: What if the lawyer just encourages the client to do it but does not attend?

A: The committee still found the lawyer should counsel against it. Even absent the lawyer, it might appear the verdict was affected by jurors' desire to attend, and future jury service could be influenced.

Q: Why does post-trial juror contact matter?

A: The committee relied on DR 7-108(D), which bars comments to a discharged juror calculated to influence future jury service, and on the broader duty to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former Code's DR 7-108 (communication with jurors) and Canon 9 (appearance of impropriety) to a post-verdict celebration involving the jury. The current counterpart is SCR 20:3.5 / Model Rule 3.5 (impartiality and decorum of the tribunal; communication with jurors).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 3.5 / SCR 20:3.5 (impartiality of the tribunal; communication with jurors); former Code DR 7-108, prior Canon 23, Canon 9

See also

• WI Ethics Op. E-84-1: Lay Consulting Service in Personal Injury Cases

Source

• Landing page: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/pages/formal-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/Ethics%20Opinions/E-74-12.pdf