I am on a task force that is considering whether to recommend a change to the Massachusetts version of Model Rule 3.5. Our version is quite strict relative to other jurisdictions in that it prohibits lawyers from initiating contact with jurors after the jury is discharged "without leave of court granted for good cause shown." In contrast, the Model Rule allows lawyers to initiate contact with jurors after the jury is discharged without having to get court approval.
I am trying to find out the experience of bar disciplinary authorities in states that have a liberal version of the rule (i.e., allow lawyers to speak with jurors after discharge without having to get court approval). I would be very grateful to hear by email from bar disciplinary authorities in these states regarding whether these jurisdictions have had many (or any) complaints from jurors about lawyers taking advantage of a permissive framework. I'd also be grateful if you could tell me about any adverse consequences associated with this more liberal rule.