Aspiring Prosecutor. Runner. Nerd Extraordinaire
Legal
The Ethical Equivelant of a Please Kick-Me Sign
Mar 31st
In this month’s e-mail update from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Disciplinary Board, they note the actions of 12 attorneys. All 12 sent in checks to pay their annual dues using “checks marked as drawn on a trust or escrow account.” Of course, this prompted an immediate inquiry from Disciplinary Counsel.
Legal Ethics Tip: Don’t Fabricate Your Job History
Feb 15th
New website CareerExcuses.com allows people to fill their resume with fake information. The website will give you an 800 number, e-mail address, and contact person to list as a reference. Whenever someone calls the number, a live operator will answer, and can take a message. Quite elaborate! They even offer some legal advice:
Is misinformation on a resume illegal?
No, Since a resume is not a legal document, it is not illegal to misrepresent on a resume.
While it may not be illegal, it is certainly unethical, so that’s why today’s legal ethics tip is: don’t fabricate your job history.
California Bill Would Require Witnesses to Report Violent Crimes
Dec 19th
Assemblymember Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara) announced a proposed amendment to California’s criminal code. The amendment would require witnesses to violent crimes to report the incident to police. Failure to report the crime could result in up to six months in jail and a fine of $1,500.
The current California law requires witnesses to report crimes against children under the age of 14. The amendment comes in the wake of a violent rape of a 16 year old girl in October. Authorities say that up to a dozen people watched the incident, but nobody called the police.
Florida: Judges Cannot be Facebook Friends with Litigants
Dec 9th
Florida’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee responded to a few questions from one Florida judge about the use of social networking sites. The Committee found that judges cannot accept friend requests from litigants in their court. They take special care to note:
This opinion should not be interpreted to mean that the inquiring judge is prohibited from identifying any person as a “friend” on a social networking site. Instead, it is limited to the facts presented by the inquiring judge, related to lawyers who may appear before the judge. Therefore, this opinion does not apply to the practice of listing as “friends” persons other than lawyers, or to listing as “friends” lawyers who do not appear before the judge, either because they do not practice in the judge’s area or court or because the judge has listed them on the judge’s recusal list so that their cases are not assigned to the judge.
It’s pretty clear from this opinion that accepting a request on Facebook, LinkedIn and Myspace from a litigant in the judge’s court are out. The opinion does not just apply to those sites though:
Although Facebook has been used as an example in this opinion, the holding of the opinion would apply to any social networking site which requires the member of the site to approve the listing of a “friend” or contact on the member’s site, if (1) that person is a lawyer who appears before the judge, and (2) identification of the lawyer as the judge’s “friend” is thereafter displayed to the public or the judge’s or lawyer’s other “friends” on the judge’s or the lawyer’s page.
Any sites with a Facebook-like approach will obviously meet the criteria of this opinion. My question is: what about Twitter? If someone is protected on Twitter, they have to approve all followers. However, anybody can see which followers have been approved. So, does that constitute identification as a “friend” on the judge’s page? I think it very well might.
You can read the full committee opinion, which also discusses campaign committees, here.
Hat tip to the Legal Profession Blog for finding this.
