The colleague relayed the conversation to the foreperson, who formally complained.
The colleague told the committee that after initially asking if he worked with the foreperson, the lawyer said she was interested in discussing the case but was not allowed to approach the woman directly.
In contrast, the lawyer told the committee she anticipated crossing paths with the foreperson at some point as they worked in the same building and that she only wanted to pass on her reassurance she would not ask about the trial.
She also said the foreperson was "free to make comment about my performance or matters of the like to me but that I would not address the matter with her".
The committee found the conduct unsatisfactory.
While the exact nature of the exchange was not clear, there was no doubt a conversation took place and that it was only because of the trial, the committee said.
The lawyer had at least referred to the foreperson being "free to approach" her with comments.
That conduct "amounted to initiating contact with a juror after the verdict which invited, encouraged or welcomed further discussions… regardless of the intent or purpose of further discussions", the committee said.
It noted the exchange left the foreperson feeling apprehensive and reluctant to be a juror in the future.
In the situation where a verdict has already been given, a lawyer "must not initiate contact with jurors… where the contact is likely to bring the system of justice into disrepute", the committee said.
