ILNews

IBA: Social Media and Ethics

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
ziepolt-mug.jpg Ziepolt
bell-james-mug Bell

By James J. Bell and Patrick A. Ziepolt, Bingham McHale LLP

Once upon a time, a Florida judge had a practice of asking criminal defendants whether they were ready for trial a week after their arraignment. A Florida lawyer believed that the judge was attempting to force defendants to waive their right to a speedy trial. When complaints to the judicial watchdog agencies yielded no results, the Florida lawyer appealed to a higher authority: the blogosphere.

On a blog, the Florida lawyer posted that the judge was trying “to make defendants waive their right to a speedy trial.” See Steven Seidenberg, Seduced: For Lawyers, the Appeal of Social Media Is Obvious. It’s Also Dangerous, A.B.A. J., Feb. 2011. So far, no unethical statement had been made. While one could argue that this was not the best way to challenge a judge, this statement attacked the judge’s decision and did not attack the judge’s integrity in violation of Florida’s equivalent to Rule 8.2(a) of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. However, when the lawyer posted that the judge was “an evil, unfair witch,” “seemingly mentally ill” and “clearly unfit for her position and knows not what it means to be a neutral arbiter,” he easily leapt over the 8.2(a) line and was sanctioned by the State of Florida. Id.

This Florida case should remind Indiana lawyers to be cognizant of the Rules of Professional Conduct when participating in any form of social media. If you are a lawyer who “tweets” like the owner of a certain local, professional football team or who feels the need to electronically express yourself, the following “Social Media Checklist” may be helpful to you:

1. Don’t reveal client confidences in social media. See Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 1.6. This seems obvious, but it is not uncommon for lawyers to post very specific details of their cases on listserves or “vent” about their clients in improper ways on Facebook.

2. Train/“supervise” staff and subordinate lawyers to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct while participating in social media. See Prof. Cond. R. 5.3. Rule 5.3 requires that attorneys with managerial authority make “reasonable efforts” to ensure that a subordinate’s conduct is “compatible” with the Rules of Professional Conduct. If confidences are revealed by a subordinate and a grievance is filed, your defense should include documentation that memorializes your training of the subordinate in the area of client confidences.

3. Don’t violate the advertising rules in social media. See Prof. Cond. R. 7.1-7.5. Remember that the Rules of Professional Conduct define “advertising” as “any manner of public communication . . . intended to promote… the use of professional services.” Bragging about yourself on a site like LinkedIn would come under this definition of “advertising.”

4. Don’t contact anyone represented by an attorney about the subject matter of the representation via social media. See Prof. Cond. R. 4.2. This rule likely prohibits a lawyer (or the lawyer’s assistant) from “friending” a represented party.

5. Don’t create a conflict of interest by establishing an attorney-client relationship with a prospective client who is adverse to a current client while on social media. See Prof. Cond. R. 1.7 and 1.18. Be wary of opining or advising about someone’s legal rights while online. Just because you don’t get paid for your advice doesn’t mean that you can’t be held responsible for it.

6. Don’t engage in ex parte communications with a judge about a pending case via social media. See Prof. Cond. R. 3.5. On that subject, think twice about becoming Facebook friends with a judge who is really a professional acquaintance. If you do have a judge “friend,” do not discuss pending cases over Facebook—and certainly don’t discuss pending cases during a trial (it’s happened).

7. Don’t make false statements to third parties on social media. See Prof. Cond. R. 4.1. See # 4, above. Some ethics opinions have held that lawyers who “friend” third-parties under false pretenses in order to read friends-only data are risking discipline.

8. Do not engage in conduct, in a “professional capacity,” that demonstrates bias or prejudice while via social media. See Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(g).

And finally, as we learned from the Florida lawyer,

9. Don’t slam the integrity of a judge on social media. See Prof. Cond. R. 8.2(a).

In order to avoid disciplinary pitfalls that stem from social media, attorneys need to remember that it is difficult to step out of their role as attorneys when they go to express themselves on the Internet. This is especially true if the attorney intends to talk about any aspect of his or her law practice. Social media is not private and it is easily forwarded, printed and preserved. Unfortunately, inappropriate “off the cuff” comments can quickly turn into a permanent, long-term nightmare for an attorney. Remembering the Rules of Professional Conduct while engaging in social media will help avoid such nightmares.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT