FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
December 3, 1970
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
Code of Professional Responsibility does not require a hearing before the trial judge after notice
of intention to interview juror has been filed.
Note: Hearings prior to post-trial contacts with jurors in civil cases are governed by
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.431(h). For a discussion of this issue in criminal cases,
see Roland v. State, 584 So.2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
EC 7-29; DR 7-108(D)
Chairman Massey stated the opinion of the committee:
An inquiring attorney seeks a review of Florida Opinion 69-17, directing his
question to that part requiring “some appropriate statement of the basis for the
challenge of the jury verdict be placed in the notice,” believing the verbiage
contained in 69-17 not to be sufficiently restrictive. In essence, the inquirer seeks
to have a hearing before the trial judge after notice of intention to interview and
ruling thereon prior to contact with a juror.
The Committee declines to recede from Florida Opinion 69-17. When the Supreme Court
adopted the Code of Professional Responsibility, it specifically amended EC 7-29 and DR
7-108(D) of the ABA version to incorporate the identical language of old Canon 23 as it existed
in Florida. As adopted, the identified provisions of the CPR simply do not require a hearing.