Social Media: Developing Issues Steven M. Richman, Esq. New York, NY November 2014

Overview Social media now permeates all aspects of life, across generations, geography and industries Generally involves software platforms that allow sharing of information, real time exchanges, use of links and cross references, images It does not change basic legal or ethical principles, but heightens the risks

Rules of Professional Conduct Various rules and principles across borders may be applicable These include primarily issues of confidentiality, conflict of interest, duties to former clients, truthfulness in statements to others, communication to persons represented by counsel, dealing with unrepresented persons, solicitation and contact with prospective clients, formation of attorney-client relationship, respect for rights of third persons, unauthorized practice of law, advertising and communication of specialty of practice

What Might Happen? The lawyer answers a question about a point of law and the questioner acts on it A lawyer talks about a “hypothetical” with no names that the real client nonetheless recognizes and believes confidentiality was breached The lawyer “friends” an adverse party or fails to “unfriend” an adverse party Many other possible scenarios

Advertising and Testimonials California Formal Opinion : – Posting on social media website is subject to rules of professional conduct – Can be “communication” or “advertising” or “testimonial” within the rules – E.g. post: “Case finally over. Unanimous verdict! Celebrating tonight.”—NOT communication – “Another great victory in court today! My client is delighted. Who wants to be next?” Communication AND testimonial in violation of Rules

“Friends” San Diego County Bar Legal Ethics Opinion : “rules bar an attorney from making an ex parte friend request of a represented party. An attorney’s ex parte communication to a represented party intended to elicit information about the subject matter of the representation is impermissible no matter what words are used in the communication and no matter how that communication is transmitted to the represented party. We have further concluded that the attorney’s duty not to deceive prohibits him from making a friend request even of unrepresented witnesses without disclosing the purpose of the request.”

Judges ABA Formal Opinion 462: “A judge may participate in electronic social networking, but as with all social relationships and contacts, a judge must comply with relevant provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct and avoid any conduct that would undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality, or create an appearance of impropriety.”

Judges (cont’d) California Judges Association Judicial Ethics Opinion 66: Judge may be member of social media network provided adhere to rules governing public comment on pending cases, do not impugn impartiality or demean the office, do not engage in impermissible political activity or lend prestige of office.

Opinion 66 (cont’d) Can include in that network lawyers appearing before him/her, provided maintain impartiality and not constitute ex parte communications CANNOT include lawyers who have case pending before the judge in the social media networking

Jurors ABA Formal Opinion 466: Lawyer can review juror or potential juror’s social media page but not communicate directly Cannot send access request If juror “pinged” or becomes aware, not deemed an improper communication

Jurors (cont’d) New York City Bar Formal Opinion : Lawyers can use social media to research jurors subject to limitations on communications with jurors or prospective jurors and prohibitions on deception to obtain information NY County Lawyers Association No. 743: Pretrial search allowed subject to no contact or communication and no attempt to “friend” potential juror and no deceit

Specialties New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 972: – Law firm cannot list its services under a “Specialties” heading on social media site – Lawyer cannot do so unless so certified

“Linkedin” Endorsements “a lawyer who adopts or endorses information on any similar web site becomes responsible for conforming all information in the lawyer’s listing to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Martindale- Hubbell, SuperLawyers, LinkedIn, Avvo, and other such websites may place their own informational listing about a lawyer on their websites without the lawyer’s knowledge or consent, and allow lawyers to take over their listings. The language employed by the website for claiming a listing is irrelevant.” South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion 09-10

Third Party Information Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion : Lawyer may review someone’s publicly available information on social networking site Ability to request access to non-public information, subject to rules regarding contact with unrepresented parties Ability to use computer alias when requesting information, subject to restrictions on deception

Third Party Information (cont’d) New York City Bar Ass’n Formal Op : “a lawyer may not use deception to access information from a social networking webpage. Rather, a lawyer should rely on the informal and formal discovery procedures sanctioned by the ethical rules and case law to obtain relevant evidence.”

Third Party Information (cont’d) New York State Bar Ass’n Op. # 843: “A lawyer who represents a client in a pending litigation, and who has access to the Facebook or MySpace network used by another party in litigation, may access and review the public social network pages of that party to search for potential impeachment material. As long as the lawyer does not "friend" the other party or direct a third person to do so, accessing the social network pages of the party will not violate Rule 8.4 (prohibiting deceptive or misleading conduct), Rule 4.1 (prohibiting false statements of fact or law), or Rule 5.3(b)(1) (imposing responsibility on lawyers for unethical conduct by nonlawyers acting at their direction).”

Third Party Information (cont’d) The Philadelphia Bar Association Professional Guidance Committee Opinion “The fact that access to the pages may readily be obtained by others who either are or are not deceiving the witness, and that the witness is perhaps insufficiently wary of deceit by unknown internet users, does not mean that deception at the direction of the inquirer is ethical.”

Use of Discovery Mechanisms Romano v. Steel Case Inc., 2010 NY Slip. Op (U) (Suffolk County 2010): Held that plaintiffs who place their physical condition in controversy may not shield from disclosure material which is necessary to the defense of the action, and that it was public information that clearly belied the plaintiff’s claims, showing a need to get to the non- public pages.

Concluding Comments Access to information available on social media can also be sought through formal discovery and if need be, by court order with appropriate protections in place The use of digital media does not change the rules regarding non-digital media Opinions may be binding or advisory, and differ from jurisdictions to jurisdiction