Josh Camson

...he's the hero that the Playground deserves, but not the one it needs right now...and so we won't play with him...because he can take it...because he's not a hero...he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector...a Park Knight...

Via Digg

A few days ago, Facebook released the top trends of 2009. These are categories of words found in status updates. For example, “Family” includes words like Mom, Dad, Brother, Sister, etc. Meanwhile, “Lady Gaga” includes phrases like “Poker Face.” The number two category includes words like “law school” is just the phrase “FML.” Enjoy the list! For a complete description of each category, check out Facebook’s explanation.

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