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.

via David Bilinsky

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’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.

On November 27th a group of lawyers filed complaints with the Washington, D.C. Board of Professional Responsibility to disbar William Haynes II, John Choon Yoo, and Alberto Gonzales for their participation in the torture memos. Haynes was the former General Counsel for the Department of Defense, while Yoo was the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice. The group, Velvet Revolution, had already made similar complaints to Boards of Professional Responsibility in DC, California, Pennsylvania, Texas, and New York. Links to all of the complaints are below.

Jay Bybee-District of Columbia Bar Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
Douglas Feith-District of Columbia Bar Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
David Addington-District of Columbia Bar Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

Stephen Bradbury-District of Columbia Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
Michael Chertoff-District of Columbia Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
John Ashcroft-District of Columbia Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
Timothy Flanigan-District of Columbia Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

Alice Fisher-District of Columbia Bar Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
William Haynes-California Bar Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
John Yoo- Pennsylvania Bar Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
Alberto Gonzales-Texas Bar Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

Michael Mukasey-New York Bar Microsoft Word (.doc) Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

William Haynes – District of ColumbiaAdobe Acrobat (.pdf)
John Yoo – District of ColumbiaAdobe Acrobat (.pdf)
Alberto Gonzales – District of ColumbiaAdobe Acrobat (.pdf)

Velvet Revolution argue that these attorneys repeatedly advocated for interrogation techniques in violation of US and international law. The group claims to have over a million members nationally, and represent more than 150 organizations. In addition to disbarring these attorneys, the group hopes to spark an open discussion of torture and how it has been used. Although they don’t necessarily cite to a specific ethical rule in each complaint, the message is clear. Only time and the respective Boards of Professional Conduct will tell whether the complaints have any merit.

Via Legal Ethics Forum

The federal judiciary recently posted a revised version of the Federal Rules of Evidence to solicit comments on the proposed changes. The revisions, overall, are a tremendous improvement over the current rules. They make the rules easier to read and understand. However, while the goal of these re-styled rules is to avoid any changes in meaning, I think some of the proposed changes will result in a change in meaning.

We are just looking at the opening clause of Rule 404 here. You’ll notice that the proposed revisions get rid of the phrase “conformity therewith.” In the introductory comments to the revisions, the authors say that they do not want to get rid of any language that is commonly used and understood in reference to certain rules. They give examples like “truth of the matter asserted” in the context of hearsay. I think the phrase “conformity therewith” falls into that category, and it should come back into 404. Its meaning is well settled and understood.

In the proposed rule 405(b), the authors add the word “relevant” to qualify the “specific instances of the person’s conduct.” Previously, the rule read to allow any specific instances of a person’s conduct. Those instances of conduct would have to prove the trait of character in question. However, they need not necessarily be independently relevant to the case at hand. I think there is a risk of changing the meaning of the rule by inserting the “relevant” qualifier. It could be read to mean that the specific conduct must be relevant to the case at hand. So if the rulemakers want to keep “relevant” in the new rule, perhaps it could read “…may also be proved by specific instances of the person’s conduct, relevant to proving the character or trait.”

As you can see, in Rule 412 the authors removed the term “alleged” that previously qualified “victim.” On my first read-through of the rules, I thought this created a very major change in the rule. However, the new Rule 412(d) reads: “In this rule, “victim” includes an alleged victim. This definition should go at the beginning of the rules with the rest of the definitions. That will make things much clearer.

The restyled version of Rule 608 is particularly helpful. The new version is significantly easier to read and follow, and does not change the meaning of the original rule.

Finally, in Rule 801(d)(2), the authors have removed the term “admissions. They explain:

The term “admissions” is confusing because not all statements covered by the exclusion are admissions in the colloquial sense — a statement can be within the exclusion even if it “admitted” nothing and was not against the party’s interest when made. The term “admissions” also raises confusion in comparison with the Rule 804(b)(3) exception for declarations against interest. No change in application of the exclusion is intended.

Removing the word “admissions” from the hearsay rules was also a very good decision. The committee’s note explaining the confusion inherent in the word “admissions” is spot on.