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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT