Today’s POV blog

In a non-binding ruling, the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee found this week that judges and lawyers may not be friends on Facebook — in order to prevent the perception of improprieties. The committee expounded that listing lawyers who may appear before the judge as friends on a judge’s social-networking page — a public forum — reasonably conveys to others the impression that these friends are in a special position to influence the judge. Some judges have already begun un-friending lawyers.

To further muddy the waters, it is not objectionable to this committee for a lawyer to become a Facebook fan of a judge — but only so long as the judge does not have approval rights over who may become a fan.

The Committee concludes that such identification in a public forum of a lawyer who may appear before the judge does convey this impression and therefore is not permitted.

So what of the judge and lawyer at a sporting event, restaurant, or FAC? If a Facebook relationship causes concern, surely a weekly poker game should raise an eyebrown or two.

Judges are appointed officials. They are appointed based upon there reputation for unbiased and ethical decision making. Should we be concerned about the interactions of a judge that may come to sway their future decision making? What is it about a social-networking relationship that conveys improprieties where a Sunday-afternoon golf game does not? Aren’t such rulings in stark contrast to the very premise of trusting a person with impartiality to the point that they are appointed as judges?

According to CareerBuilders.com, almost 30 percent of hiring managers said they were using Facebook to research new hires and about 26 percent are using LinkedIn. This type of snooping has armed Judge Susan Criss with a judicial-campaign tool. Most people, lawyers included, do not have full appreciation for exactly how public social networks have become — despite privacy controls.

Criss noted a case before her where a lawyer asked for a continuance because of the death of her father, but in a series of Facebook updates had revealed a week of drinking and partying. She pointed also to a number of times when lawyers blur the ethical lines complaining about clients and opposing counsel in these public forums.

Criss says he follows her ethical canons and is careful about what she says and who she adds as a friend to her network. Her policy is to accept friend requests from all lawyers to avoid an appearance that she favors one side over another. Adding friends from the general public is trickier and a place where she tends to be much more selective.

According to Law.com, the legal blogwatch, during a child-custody trial, a lawyer and judge became friends and exchanged a number of postings relevant to the case. The mother of the child learned of the exchange and her lawyer moved for a new trial and to have the judge disqualified. She succeeded in gaining both.

To make matters worse, the judge had Googled the wife and visited the web site of her business that contained personal photographs and poetry. He went so far as to read one of her poems into the record as he announced his decision. None of the content he found had been entered into evidence, thus ethically preventing him from referencing it at all.

Judges have a code of ethics that outlines the requirements for holding that office and this includes their behavior in public and in public forums. We should not have to be concerned that Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and the like are negative influence on the ethics of a judge. Maybe they offer an insight that exposes those who have always been unqualified for the job.