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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT