An overwhelming 81% of the nation’s top divorce attorneys say they have seen an increase in the number of cases using
social networking evidence during the past five years, according to a recent survey of the American Academy of Matrimonial
Lawyers (AAML). Facebook holds the distinction of being the unrivaled leader for online divorce evidence with 66% citing it
as the primary source.
Facebook relaxed privacy settings over the last year. Some attorneys believe this has led to some users’ personal information
being released without the user’s knoweldge. In May, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged the problem and,
in a blog, announced new tools making it easier for users to tighten privacy settings and block outside parties from seeing
personal information.
Indianapolis attorney Nissa Ricafort of Broyles Kight & Ricafort said, “Facebook and Twitter are enticing to individuals
because they offer an opportunity to be spontaneous and to share the fun and exciting things that are happening in their lives.
The problem is that people often post their messages in a hasty manner without considering who might be reading the messages
or the implications of the content of their messages. This is why divorce lawyers end up with so much ‘dirt’ on
people to present in court proceedings. These lawyers often are able to capitalize on an individual’s lack of judgment
that he or she has posted on the web for all to see.”•














the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!