Can a trial lawyer flatter or compliment the jury, like thanking them for their attention?

Plain-English summary

The opinion (rendered November 20, 1962, and amended April 6, 2013) addressed lawyers who express to jurors solicitude for the jurors' personal comfort and make flattering remarks such as "I appreciate your patience, attentiveness, etc." or "you have been an excellent jury." The committee acknowledged that such statements and conduct are not uncommon in the courts of the State, but concluded that they are highly improper and unprofessional.

The opinion applied MRPC 3.5, under which a lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror, or other official by means prohibited by law, or communicate ex parte with such a person during the proceeding unless authorized by law or court order. It concluded that lawyers should make suggestions for the comfort or convenience of jurors to the court, out of the jury's hearing, and should avoid any private contact with jurors before or during trial about the case or any other matter.

Currency note

The official header records “RENDERED November 20, 1962” and “AMENDED April 06, 2013” (opinion text). This page reproduces the amended version. Later rule amendments or opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify current rules before relying on a specific requirement.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer thank or compliment the jury on their attentiveness?

A: The opinion concluded that fawning, flattery, or pretended solicitude for jurors' comfort, including remarks like complimenting them on their attentiveness, is improper and unprofessional.

Q: How should a lawyer raise a juror-comfort issue?

A: Per the opinion, the lawyer should make suggestions for jurors' comfort or convenience to the court, out of the jury's hearing.

Q: Can a lawyer speak privately with a juror about an unrelated matter?

A: The opinion concluded that lawyers should avoid making any private contact with jurors before or during the trial, about the case or about any other matter.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets MRPC 3.5 (impartiality and decorum of the tribunal; improper influence on and ex parte communication with judges, jurors, and officials), corresponding to Model Rule 3.5.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (Mississippi; cf. Model Rules):

• MRPC 3.5 (improper influence on jurors and officials; ex parte contact) (cf. Model Rule 3.5)

See also

• Mississippi Ethics Op. 22: Currying Favor With Judges and Hearing Officers
• Hawaii Ethics Op. 24: Gifts and Loans to Judges by Lawyers

Source

• Landing page: https://web.archive.org/web/20210429223833/https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/7/
• Original PDF: https://web.archive.org/web/20240801103602/https://www.msbar.org/media/1562/et-op-7-amended.pdf
• Note: The Mississippi Bar no longer hosts its ethics opinions on a public page; it now provides them to members through vLex Fastcase (Bar ethics opinions page). The links above are Internet Archive copies of the Bar's own pages.

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

ETHICS OPINION NO. 7

OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR

RENDERED November 20, 1962

AMENDED April 06, 2013

JURY - It is unprofessional and highly improper for a lawyer to curry favor with juries by fawning, flattery or pretended solicitude for their personal comfort.

This committee has been advised that there are lawyers who express to jurors solicitude for the personal comfort of the jurors and make flattering remarks to them such as "I appreciate your patience, attentiveness, etc.," or "you have been an excellent jury, etc."

Although the committee is aware of the fact that such statements and conduct is not uncommon in the courts of this State, notwithstanding, it is the opinion of the committee that said statements or similar ones and such conduct are highly improper and unprofessional.

Rule 3.5, MRPC, provides that a lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law or to communicate ex parte with such a person during the proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or court order.

It is the Committee's opinion that lawyers should make suggestions for the comfort or convenience of jurors to the court out of the jury's hearing and should avoid making any private contact with jurors before or during the trial about the case or about any other matter.