In January I blogged here about the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee of the Florida Supreme Court and about the South Carolina Department of Justice ethics opinions at the time on whether judges could be Facebook friends with other lawyers. Now, it looks like there are more opinions…
NEW YORK: Link here for an article on the new New York opinion on the topic. The New York opinion is here. My opinion of the New York opinion? They “punted.” Here’s an excerpt of what they said:
The judge also should be mindful of the appearance created when he/she establishes a connection with an attorney or anyone else appearing in the judge’s court through a social network. In some ways, this is no different from adding the person’s contact information into the judge’s Rolodex or address book or speaking to them in a public setting. But, the public nature of such a link (i.e., other users can normally see the judge’s friends or connections) and the increased access that the person would have to any personal information the judge chooses to post on his/her own profile page establish, at least, the appearance of a stronger bond. A judge must, therefore, consider whether any such online connections, alone or in combination with other facts, rise to the level of a “close social relationship” requiring disclosure and/or recusal (Compare Opinion 07-141 with Opinion 06-149).
KENTUCKY: The Kentucy opinion is here. My opinion of the Kentucky opinion? I think they got it right. Hooray! Here’s an excerpt of what they said:
While the nomenclature of a social networking site may designate certain participants as “friends,” the view of the Committee is that such a listing, by itself, does not reasonably convey to others an impression that such persons are in a special position to influence the judge. *** While social networking sites may create a more public means of indicating a connection, the Committee’s view is that the designation of a “friend” on a social networking site does not, in and of itself, indicate the degree or intensity of a judge’s relationship with the person who is the “friend”. The Committee conceives such terms as “friend,” “fan” and “follower” to be terms of art used by the site, not the ordinary sense of those words. Recent judicial ethics opinions in other states have reached conflicting results. See Fla. Jud. Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-20(concluding that judges may not add lawyers who may appear before the judge as “friends” on a social networking site); contra N.Y. Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 08-176(concluding that judges may belong to internet-based social network, but should exercise discretion and otherwise comply with Rules Governing Judicial Conduct); S.c. Advisory Committee Opinion 17-2009(concluding that ajudge may be a member of Facebook and be “friends” with law enforcement officers, so long as they do not discuss matters relating to the judge’s position). The Florida committee found it significant that in order for a judge to list someone as a “friend,” or for another person to list the judge as a “friend,” the judge was required to consent to the listing.
