2. Juror Social Media Rules
ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.5(b)
Prohibits ex parte communication with jurors
ABA Formal Opinion 466 (April 24, 2014)
Permits internet research that does not involve communication
The fact that a juror may become aware of the research does not constitute communication in violation of Rule 3.5(b)
Judge may ban searches

3. Juror Social Media Rules
State Rules Vary on the Issue
New York: permits internet research, but prohibits notifications to juror
Oregon: allows lawyers to ask jurors for permission to access social media profiles as long as lawyer honestly represents his role

4. Tex. Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 3.06
A lawyer shall not:
(1) conduct or cause another, by financial support or otherwise, to conduct a vexatious or harassing investigation of a venireman or juror; or
(2) seek to influence a venireman or juror concerning the merits of a pending matter by means prohibited by law or applicable rules of practice or procedure. 

5. Tex. Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 3.06
Comment:
1. To safeguard the impartiality that is essential to the judicial process, veniremen and jurors should be protected against extraneous influences. … . There should be no extrajudicial communication with veniremen prior to trial or with jurors during trial or on behalf of a lawyer connected with the case.

6. Tex. Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 3.06
Comment:
3. Communications with or investigations of members of families of veniremen or jurors by a lawyer or by any one on his behalf are subject to the restrictions imposed upon the lawyer with respect to his communications with or investigations of veniremen and jurors.

7. Social Media Subcommittee of the Texas Supreme Court Advisory Committee,12/2017
The subcommittee recommends the ABA approach should be adopted in Texas and added to the Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 3.06
The subcommittee reports that, absent state law or court order, lawyers are allowed to review a juror’s/potential juror’s electronic social media presence.

8. SCAC Social Media Subcommittee,12/2017
The subcommittee focuses on the ABA’s three levels of lawyer review
Silent, passive lawyer review of a juror’s electronic social media that is available without making an access request and the juror is unaware that a website or electronic social media had been reviewed;
Passive lawyer review where the juror becomes aware through a website or electronic social media feature of the identity of the viewer; and
Active lawyer review where the lawyer requests access to the juror’s electronic social media.

10. SCAC Social Media Subcommittee 12/2017
Following the ABA issued Formal Opinion 466, “passive lawyer review of a juror’s website or ESM without making an access request, where the juror is not aware of the review, is permissible.”
“Nor are ethical constraints violated by passive lawyer review when the juror becomes aware of the lawyer’s identity through the social media provider.” [Rejected 12/1/ SCAC

11. Texas Disciplinary Rules on Jury Communications remain unchanged and there is no formal language incorporating ABA to date