Beyond the Google Search: Why Specialized Juror Research Matters

Before a trial begins, litigation teams spend significant time preparing for voir dire. Attorneys review questionnaires, develop voir dire questions, identify potential challenges, and try to understand the jury pool they may soon face. In many firms, that research may become one of the many responsibilities handled by a paralegal or other member of the litigation team. ABA Model Rule 5.3 specifically recognizes that lawyers may use nonlawyer assistants and outside services to assist with legal work. At the same time, the rule requires lawyers to take reasonable steps to ensure that the work is performed consistently with the lawyer’s professional obligations. The issue is that effective juror research is becoming an investigative task, not simply an administrative one.

Juror Research Has Changed

Searching a juror’s name on Google and checking the first Facebook or LinkedIn result may have been enough to uncover some useful information in the past. Today, a person’s digital footprint can be much more complicated.

A juror may use different usernames on different platforms. An account may be connected to a maiden name, former surname, nickname, or alternate spelling. A social media profile may not use the person’s full legal name at all. That means finding the right account can be just as important as finding information on the account.

The American Bar Association recognizes that lawyers may review a juror’s or prospective juror’s publicly available internet presence, including social media postings, as long as they do not communicate with the juror or prospective juror. 

The New York City Bar Association similarly concluded that attorneys may conduct social media research on prospective or sitting jurors, but emphasized that researchers must understand the technology and privacy settings of the platforms being searched. It also cautioned against deception and against using a third party to do something the attorney could not ethically do themselves. 

In other words, juror research requires more than knowing how to search. It requires knowing how to search without crossing ethical boundaries.

The Problem With a Single-Platform Search

One of the biggest limitations of traditional juror research is that it can produce a false sense of completeness. A search may turn up a LinkedIn profile and a Facebook account. That does not necessarily mean the researcher has found the juror’s full online presence. Effective research requires more than a basic name search. It requires specialized methods for locating, evaluating, and verifying publicly available information. 

Finding a social media account with the same name as a prospective juror does not automatically establish that the account belongs to that person. A responsible research process has to distinguish between a genuine match and someone who simply shares the same name, and that’s exactly what our team at Vijilent specializes in. 

This is one reason juror research is fundamentally different from a quick internet search. The goal is not to collect the largest amount of information possible but to identify relevant, publicly available information and accurately associate it with the correct juror. 

There Are Ethical Boundaries

There is also a significant difference between finding publicly available information and attempting to gain access to information that a juror has chosen not to make public. ABA Formal Opinion 466 states that lawyers may review a juror’s internet presence but may not communicate directly or indirectly with the juror. It specifically explains that lawyers cannot send access requests to a juror’s social media account to obtain information that the juror has not made public. 

The New York City Bar reached a similar conclusion, noting that lawyers must avoid deception or misrepresentation and cannot simply use a third party to accomplish something the lawyer could not ethically accomplish themselves. 

There can also be another complication: different platforms behave differently. Some platforms may notify a user when someone views a profile or otherwise interacts with the researcher's activity. The ABA has recognized that a notification generated by a social media platform can raise ethical concerns because the researcher may effectively be communicating with the juror without intending to do so. This is why “just have someone look them up” can be an oversimplification of the task.

What Can Get Missed?

When juror research is limited to standard search methods, litigation teams may miss information that could be relevant to voir dire. That might include:

• Information that isn’t immediately visible in standard search results

• Public information that provides additional context about a prospective juror

• Information that requires additional verification before it can be confidently associated with an individual

None of these discoveries automatically means a juror should be removed from the panel. Social media research can give the litigation team additional information to consider and additional questions to ask for voir dire. The goal of juror research should not be to label people as “good jurors” or “bad jurors.” It should be to give attorneys a more complete understanding of the individuals they may be asking to decide a case.

Why This Matters for Jury Research

For a jury research company, this is where the difference between basic searching and structured research becomes especially important. At Vijilent, juror research is designed specifically for the demands of litigation. Our approach goes beyond basic online searching to provide litigation teams with organized, relevant, and carefully evaluated public information about prospective jurors. The goal is not to overwhelm attorneys with information but to provide meaningful context that can complement the team’s existing trial preparation. 

That means looking beyond the first search result and considering the broader digital footprint of each prospective juror. It means using multiple sources and platforms, comparing identifiers, and organizing relevant findings so attorneys can quickly understand what they are looking at.

It also means understanding the limitations of the information. A social media profile can provide valuable insight, but it is still only one piece of a juror’s background. Online information can be incomplete, outdated, misleading, or incorrectly attributed. Good research requires judgment about what is actually relevant and what simply creates noise. That is particularly important when a litigation team is making decisions that could affect jury selection.

The Advantage of Specialized Juror Research

Paralegals are often asked to wear many hats during litigation. They may be responsible for document management, discovery, case preparation, filings, trial exhibits, scheduling, witness preparation, and countless other tasks.  Adding increasingly sophisticated digital investigations to that workload does not necessarily make the process more efficient. And according to ABA Model Rule 5.3, lawyers remain responsible for taking reasonable steps to ensure that nonlawyer assistance is compatible with their professional obligations. 

At Vijilent, juror research is designed specifically around the needs of litigation teams. Rather than relying on a single search engine or a single social media platform, our process uses structured, multi-platform research to build a more comprehensive picture of prospective jurors.

The results are then consolidated into a format that allows litigation teams to review and share relevant findings internally. The objective is not to replace the knowledge of the attorneys or the work of the paralegal. It is to give the litigation team another layer of specialized research that can complement its existing preparation.

Before Voir Dire, Look Beyond the Surface

The modern juror leaves behind a digital footprint that may extend far beyond the profile that appears in a basic name search. Finding that footprint requires more than simply knowing where to click. It requires the ability to connect identifiers, distinguish between real and false matches, search across platforms, recognize less obvious accounts, and understand the ethical boundaries surrounding juror research.

For litigation teams, the question is therefore not simply “Did we Google everyone?”

It is: “Did we conduct a thorough, structured, and ethically appropriate search before voir dire begins?”

Because when jury selection matters, the information you uncover before voir dire can be just as important as the questions you ask during it.