Minors Continue Challenging Facebook Credits in Federal Court

I've never been one to participate in the variety of silly game apps offered by Facebook; particularly the ones for which you must pay.  Most kids, on the other hand, are eager participants.

In Michigan, when a company contracts with a minor, that contract is voidable.  The Internet has taken voidable contracts with minors to another level with the emergence of digital currency.

A lawsuit filed against the mighty Facebook by a pair of minors has been grinding along out in Northern California for the past few years.  Here at the Law Blogger, we've been following developments in the case courtesy of Eric Goldman's Technology and Marketing Law Blog.

The minors filed suit against FB in federal court alleging a variety of claims stemming from their purchase of Facebook Credits; the minors used parental credit cards without authorization.  Facebook Credits are units of credit that are purchased in a user's local currency such as the dollar, pound, drachma, mark, or yen [no bit coins please] for use in say, the Ninja Saga game.

Facebook keeps bringing motions for summary judgment in the case, slowing stripping away some of the claims advanced in the lawsuit.

Last week, the federal judge dismissed the minors' claims for violation of California's unfair competition statute on the basis the minors' did not use their own money, so they did not have standing to make this claim.  Goldman is rightly troubled by the fact that no one seems to have standing to bring a claim under the state consumer protection statute; neither the minors nor their parents.

The court also granted Facebook's motion as to the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act claims, ruling that the EFTA does not apply to FB because it is not a "financial institution" under the definition of the Act. Goldman characterizes this portion of the opinion as an "oddity" to the extent that Facebook Credits are a form of digital currency.

Arguably the most significant portion of the lawsuit  -the voidability of contracts with minors- survived FB's most recent procedural attack, so the case marches onward.  You can expect to see more of this type of litigation in the future as minors become increasingly active with the various forms of digital currency.

When discovery finally ends in this case, the presiding federal judge will likely be asked to decide yet another round of dispositive motions brought by both David and Goliath.  Stay tuned for those developments as the outcome could have a significant impact on both FB and how business with minors is conducted.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: bit coins,Electronic Funds Transfer Act,Eric Goldman,Facebook,Facebook Credits,federal court,Northern California

HuffPo Switches To Facebook Commenting

The Huffington Post today announced that in order to bring "civility and accountability" to their comments, they are switching to a (mostly) Facebook-based system.

When you log in to your account and go to make a comment, you will be prompted to link your commenting account to your verified Facebook account. Then, choose how you'd like your name to be displayed. You can either display your first and last names, or your first name and last initial. This is the only information that will be viewable to the community at large, and you will have control over your private information via Facebook's privacy settings. If you do not want to link your Huffington Post account to Facebook, you can still log in to your account and fan and fave other users and their comments. And if, for whatever reason, you fear posting a comment under your name -- if you are a whistleblower, or fear harassment, or any other reason -- you can apply for the right to comment anonymously by filling out this form.

The last line of the above connects readers to an "appeal of commenting pseudonym" application. Should JMG switch to Facebook commenting too, before Eric Holder kicks in my door? Naw, I floated that idea here a couple of years ago and most of you shook your fists at me.

Read more »

Posted in: Facebook,Huffington Post,internet

Facebook Perjury

By:  Timothy P. Flynn

Tampering with digital evidence in a criminal trial can get you into big trouble.  Although rare, a perjury charge often carries a higher potential prison term than the underlying crime.

Last summer in Traverse City, a woman testified on behalf of her boyfriend at his child abuse trial.  The victim in the boyfriend's criminal case was the woman's teenage son.

Problems arose in the TC household when the woman's boyfriend tossed the teen out of the woman's home.  When the boy returned a short time later to retrieve some of his personalty, a physical confrontation between the teenager and the boyfriend ensued [we've seen this movie before], resulting in criminal charges of 4th degree child abuse.

At the man's trial, the Mom brought printouts of her son's Facebook page and testified that her son was actually engaged in a FB conversation at the time of the alleged beat-down.  The prosecutor wasn't buying it, and questioned the witness about whether she had altered the documents she brought into court in any manner.

When the Mom responded "no" to the prosecutor's line of questions, the proffered evidence was subjected to a forensic examination which revealed that the computer's time zone setting was altered to line-up the FB posts with the time of the beating.  A simple but effective "gotcha" moment that prosecutors live for.

Apparently, this woman must now answer to a felony warrant for perjury and tampering with evidence.  The woman's exposure in her criminal case is 15-years in prison; a much steeper penalty than the one faced by her violent boyfriend.

This case illustrates the principle that, when digital evidence is involved, every key stroke can be verified.  Perjury is rarely charged due to the inherent difficulties with proofs.  In this case, however, the digital evidence supports the charges, and the accused does not garner any sympathy; at least not from us over here at the Law Blogger.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: child abuse,child custody,Facebook,perjury,Traverse City

Cyber-Bully Censorship by Facebook and Teachers

We've all seen the damage a relentless campaign of bullying can do once it takes to the Internet, especially among young students on the ubiquitous Facebook platform.  In some cases, the victims resort to suicide to escape the scathing humiliation.

The Maryland Attorney General and Facebook are teaming-up with educators to put a quick stop to cyber-bullying among students.  This pilot program consists of a dedicated channel, the Educator Escalation Channel, where designated teacher-censors flag objectionable content by transmitting a content-removal report for expedited FB processing.

The program was rolled-out by the Maryland AG in conjunction with recently-passed legislation enhancing the state's Internet harassment crime.  While these coordinated efforts advance the interest of eliminating school-originated cyber-bullying, some legal pundits warn of their potential to stifle free speech in the process.

Commenting for the WSJ's Law Blog, noted Gotham criminal defense lawyer Scott Greenfield remarked that the teacher-censorship program could, "institutionalize a process where the teachers appear capable of making a determination on the value of speech outside the realm of school."  By our calculus here at the Law Blogger, that amounts to government censorship.

Greenfield said it best in his blog post on the anti-cyber-bully initiative:

While Facebook may be a private enterprise, fully entitled to decide what content is acceptable on its platform and similarly entitled to decide that its users will no longer be allowed to write “Suzy is a poo poo head” on the wall, it’s not that simple when the censor is a state actor and the content at issue is deemed offensive not because it violates any law, but because someone is empowered to stifle speech that doesn’t comport with their vision of redeeming societal value, whatever that means.  By doing the bidding of teachers, Facebook becomes the agent of the state.  Not so private anymore.

Neither the Maryland AG nor FB admit that the censorship of objectionable posts comes from the state.  While it may emanate from a state actor [i.e. a teacher], they say it is FB, in conjunction with its published community standards, that will make the final decision.

This program illustrates the tension between our interests in stopping the school yard bully, and avoiding the government censor.  Where do you land on this calculus?  Tell us with a comment.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: cyber bully,Educator Escalation Channel,Facebook,free speech,Scott Greenfield

Student Convicted for Menacing Facebook Post

By:  Timothy P. Flynn

Last December, on the same day of the Sandy Hook massacre in Connecticut, a high school sophomore in Wilmington, OH exercised his right to free speech along with some incredibly poor judgment and posted the following on his Facebook status:

Kids were shot. Who cares?  Dead kids are dead kids.  Murder is a good thing. This is a serious status, I really think murder is a good thing.  It doesn't matter who is killed, as long as there is killing.  I have been saying for years now that there needs to be another mass murder, I have said this too (sic) many people.  The fact they were just kids makes me laugh.  I'd have done this job myself if I could have. All forms of life are insignificant.  Doesn't matter if they die today, tomorrow, or in 30 years. They are going to die.  I may as well help them out.

Wow!  While the group of people that would agree with such abhorrent commentary is a minute psychotic fringe, the group of people that would support the student's right to spout such venom is much larger.  In the law enforcement community, however, not so much.

Understandably, this young student's problems began shortly after he posted this status, starting with his arrest and detention.  He was charged with violating Ohio's "menacing" and "inducing panic" statutes.

At the student's adjudicatory hearing last January, the principal of Wilmington High School testified that, in light of the events of Sandy Hook that same day, he considered the Facebook post to be a threat, especially in the context of his duty to protect 900 students at his school.  On the basis of this and other evidence [the student, according to detectives, showed zero remorse and seemed not to care about the proceedings against him] the juvenile was convicted.

On appeal, the juvenile asserted that his conviction was based on insufficient evidence to the extent that his words did not constitute a specific threat and he did not name an intended target.  The Ohio appellate court rejected this assertion and affirmed his adjudication as a delinquent last week, holding the criminalized conduct of the menacing statute is much broader and includes such generalized "threats" within its scope.

The Ohio appellate opinion provided the following rationale:

The reach of [the menacing statute] is not so narrow as to be restricted only to conduct constituting an overt threat as P.T. [the Defendant] suggests.  Rather, the statute proscribes a much broader spectrum of behavior by criminalizing any conduct engaged in by a person knowing that such conduct would cause another to believe the offender will cause the other person, or the other’s family, physical harm.  In the present case, P.T. posted on Facebook—knowing that it is a website readily accessible to many individuals living in the Wilmington area—endorsing the events that occurred at Sandy Hook and stating that if he had the means to accomplish such a shooting, he would have "done the job" himself. Although the posts were not made to or about any particular person, it was reasonable to believe that the posts would be viewed and conveyed through Facebook to individuals associated with the Wilmington school district, where P.T. attended school.

Interestingly, the opinion does not indicate whether the student, through his appellate attorneys, raised a free speech defense under the First Amendment.  Also, the opinion is wholly silent as to a First Amendment analysis.

This case could have been the digital version of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.  Apparently, that did not matter in this Ohio case which focused solely on whether the threat was real.

A close look at the evidence summarized by the appellate court indicates that it was not a credible or real threat.  So where does that leave Ohioans, hunched over their computers typing away at some loathsome post for which they can be punished?  Where does this case leave the First Amendment?

Post Script - Here's the other side of this coin.  A Florida middle school girl jumped to her death as this post was being composed yesterday, apparently distraught from a year of constant bullying by her peers.  Here is a link to the story.  Most of the bullying took place on social media sites where the bullies asked the young girl why she was still alive and to just go kill herself.  Florida has anti-bullying statutes on the books, and the bullies have First Amendment rights.  We here at the Law Blogger have to ask: just where do you draw the line?

Post Post Script - Just days after this post was published, a federal appeals panel from the 4th Circuit held that clicking "like" on Facebook was a form of protected free speech under the first amendment.  Here is the WSJ link to a post detailing the ruling.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Facebook,First Amendment,Sandy Hook

Facebook and Vigilante Justice

By: Timothy P. Flynn

On Sunday Morning, I was reading the Detroit Free Press about a rough incident of vigilante justice made possible by Facebook.  As the social media experience accelerates, we can expect more cases like this one.

The Crime.  A 15-year old girl with Down Syndrome was allegedly raped in the Hubbard Farms neighborhood on Detroit's Southwest side on July 17th.  Word got out that the suspect was a 45-year old man, also from Hubbard Farms.

The Consequences.  First, Emails circulated through the neighborhood about the attack and the suspect's involvement, divulging his name and address.  Next, graffiti below the suspect's apartment window pronounced the Hubbard Farms resident a "Rapist".  Once outed by the graffiti and emails, neighbors demanded to know what should be done about the attack, and the alleged attacker, like right now.

An Unfortunate Delay.  For their part, the Detroit Police bungled getting off the dime on the case.  The subsequent investigation into the girl's attack led to a rape kit that included a Buccal swab from the suspect.  The DNA samples, however, were not transmitted to the Michigan State Police crime lab by the DPD for over a week.

We here at the Law Blogger know, from our own cases, that the State Police crime lab is seriously backlogged, taking between 6-months up to one-year before test results are returned.

A Facebook "Call-to-Action".  So in the month since the rape occurred, neighbors who see the alleged attacker still walking the streets, have become incensed with the slow-moving wheels of justice.  They know that the suspect has not been charged with any crime; at least not yet.

This delay in justice was not acceptable to some of the neighborhood residents who recently struck-up a FB campaign calling for street justice; one post even suggested a back-alley castration; others posted equally specific threats.

The Beatdown.  Apparently, due to the e-notoriety of the alleged attacker, he himself was attacked on the street by several members of the neighborhood, beaten with a baseball bat and kicked in the ribs and face according to witnesses.  He survived the beatdown and his family moved him to an unknown location for his own safety.  [Note: Although witnesses to the beatdown contacted the DPD, the police arrived too late, apparently otherwise engaged with a fatal shooting nearby.]

Guardianship Proceedings.  According to the Freep article, the suspect has a mental illness, was committed to a mental health facility last year, and has a Guardianship in the Wayne County Probate Court.

Managing over 75 guardianships in my own law practice as a Public Administrator, I understand the challenges and heartbreak of mental illness.  Mental illness, however, is not a legal defense to most crimes.  When our wards get charged and convicted of crimes, their mental illness is taken into account at the sentencing hearing, but it does not exonerate the criminal act.

Vigilante Justice.  Vigilante justice is not the answer, even when the wheels of justice turn slowly.  While justice delayed is truly justice denied, vigilantism points to a critical breakdown in our society, letting us know just how close chaos looms beneath the surface.

As a criminal defense lawyer, I understand the necessity of the prosecutor to collect evidence to prove the charges in a court of law.  Nearly always easier said than done, especially in Detroit.

In this case, the Wayne County Prosecutor will bring criminal charges against the alleged attacker just as soon as they have sufficient evidence to prevail in court; that's how the justice system works.

We here at the Law Blogger find it ironic that technological advances such as the proliferation of social media serve, at least in cases like this, to accelerate violence in a frenzied rush to judgment.

What if the mob gets it wrong; where is the appeal filed from that injustice?

www.clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: buccal swab,criminal defense lawyer,Detroit Police Department,DNA,Facebook,guardianship,Hubbard Farms,Public Administrator,Timothy P. Flynn

Michigan's Internet Privacy Protection Act & Social Media

On the last business day of calendar 2012, Governor Snyder signed the Internet Privacy Protection Act.  With that stroke of the Governor's pen, Michigan joins just 3 other states [California, Maryland and Illinois] to enact sweeping employment legislation designed to protect employees' and students' social media accounts.

This law affects all employers, regardless of size, and also applies to public and private schools.  The IPPA prohibits employers or schools from requiring applicants to disclose their password or login information as a condition for admission, hiring or discipline.

Technically, employers and schools are prohibited from accessing a subject's "personal internet account", which is defined in the statute as:

an account created via a bounded system established by an internet-based service that requires a user to input or store access information via an electronic device to view, create, utilize, or edit the user’s account information, profile, display, communications, or stored data.

This definition covers just about every social media account you can think of; and then some.  Arguably, the IPPA applies to all employee's internet accounts of any kind; not just social media accounts.

However, there are broad exceptions to what is out-of-bounds for employers.  For example,

• Employers can still access devices owned by the employer as well as the data stored on such devices; 
• Accounts created by the employer and used for the employer's business purpose; 
• Employers can discipline employees that transfer data owned by the employer onto that employee's personal internet account;
• Employers can access personal accounts when necessary to conduct an investigation for the purpose of complying with laws; 
• Employers can access personal accounts when conducting an investigation into work-related conduct, and 
• Employers can still access any information about an employee or applicant that is available on the Internet without the use of a password or login information.

One interesting context within which the new Act will likely get some early play is in the workmen's compensation arena.  It is nothing new for insurance adjusters to track the activities of injured employees on social media sites.  The IPPA may supply an avenue of protection for employees who have had a post on Facebook taken out of context.

The Act also bars an employer from "shoulder surfing" the employee; the practice of monitoring an employee's social media site by directing the employee to log onto the site so the manager can observe recent posts.

Nor can an employer require an employee to disclose information from which the employer can then access the employee's personal internet account.

Violation of the IPPA subjects an employer to a misdemeanor conviction and a fine of $1000 as well as other civil penalties.  Violators are also subject to paying the employee's attorney fees.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: employer,Facebook,Governor Rick Snyder,Internet Privacy Protection Act,personal internet account,privacy law

Your Digital Estate Plan

Do you ever wonder what becomes of a deceased person's Facebook profile?

Increasingly, folks are compiling several digital profiles on the ever-popular social media sites now embedded into the Internet.  Many of us have thoroughly fleshed-out these electronic profiles.

Well, what happens to your digital persona when you die?  How do we assist our family members with the dismantling of these often extensive robust electronic profiles?

Below are examples of typical digital "assets" contained in an average modern person's legacy:

• Social media profiles such as Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and a host of others
• Professional profiles [I maintain at least a half dozen and counting]
• Bank accounts, loan accounts, mortgage accounts
• Investment accounts such as eTrade or Ameritrade
• Uploaded photos
• Uploaded articles
• Education accounts, including alumni account profiles
• Gaming sites
• Email profiles and communications [Most people have at least two email accounts these days.]
• Digital media accounts
• Cloud computing profiles or accounts
• On-line store accounts, particularly those with a social media angle such as iTunes and Amazon

There are other examples, to be sure.  Any site that you've had to log-on to, create a profile, and post content, or place orders, is a component of your digital inventory.  That's a lot to keep track of...

If your situation is typical, you have some similar passwords, or a theme running through your accounts, but due to the specifications of the particular site, most of your usernames and passwords are different.  Also, you probably maintain a list of your names and passwords somewhere; perhaps on your computer.

There are, of course, some web-based products and services that assist with the management of your digital profile:

• roboform.com
• stickypassword.com
• datainherit.com

The first step in managing your digital legacy is to list all of your on-line "assets" and list the usernames and passwords associated with those accounts.  You will be saving a family member or friend untold hours on the phone, or on the computer, when they try to figure it out in your absence.

Once you have compiled your all-important digital inventory, the next step is to reference this list and attach it to a power of attorney document.  This will allow your attorney-in-fact to manage your accounts in the event of your temporary absence or incapacity.

Ditto to your will; include an instructional paragraph referencing and attaching your digital inventory.

If no instructions are provided, Michigan does not yet have laws governing the posthumous management of a person's on-line "assets".  So far, only Oklahoma and Idaho have such laws, with Nebraska not far behind.  [Where is California in all this?]

Therefore, if you die "digitally intestate", what happens to your digital profile is up to the particular service provider.  For example, Facebook has long taken the position, based on its robust operating agreement that you agreed to when creating your account, that FB owns all of your posts and content.  When you die on Facebook's watch, they memorialize your account; restricting views and posts to friends and family.  Also, the account is closed if requested by your next-of-kin.

Some folks, however, do not have any next-of-kin.  What then?

Here are some options for the proactive among our readers.  Some posthumous services will send an email composed by you, or by your designated personal representative, to a designated list of contacts.  Here is a sample list of such services:

• Online-Legacy.com
• mywonderfulllife.com
• ownlegacy.com

Call it another characteristic of our modern life; once we are gone, our digital profile lives on for a time.  In this fast-paced era, however, it's amazing how fast such a profile will become outdated.

Taking the right steps will allow you to manage that profile from the grave...

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: digital assets,digital inventory,digital legacy,estate planning,Facebook,Linked In,YouTube

Electronic Service of Process

Well, the day is here; or, at least it's getting here.  Lexis/Nexis, the huge legal data base firm [and a charter member of the "Big Data" club], reports that some courts in several Commonwealth countries are allowing alternative service of legal papers via, well, er, Facebook, and other electronic means designed to achieve delivery -in fact- of legal papers.

In the UK, the High Court allowed an injunction to be served via Facebook on an anonymous [and abusive] commenter to Donal Blaney's conservative blog.  Imagine that...

In Australia, a foreclosure notice was ordered to be sent to the delinquent homeowners via Facebook.  Under Canada's rules of alternate service, notice of a claim was sent to the defendant both through his employer, and via Facebook. And in New Zealand, a the initial complaint in a business dispute was allowed to be served on the missing defendant through a company Facebook page.

No reported cases here in the US folks, but it won't be long.  These days, perhaps the most sure-fire way to get someone, at least a person that has a FB account, is by posting on their wall or sending a message.

Texas lawyer John G. Browning addresses the issue in an excellent article published in the Texas Bar Journal.  More on this to come, for sure...

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: alternate service,Attorney John G. Browning,Donal Blaney,Facebook,lawyer,legal process,State Bar of Michigan

Cooley Law Alumni Sues Alma Mater in Class Action Suit

A class action law suit was filed against the Cooley Law School this week in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.  In addition to legal counsel from Gotham, attorney Steve Hyder from Monroe, MI, himself a Cooley graduate, is local counsel on the suit.

The 45-page complaint reads like an indictment on the issue of student loans versus available law jobs in this protracted economic downturn.  The complaint alleges that Cooley intentionally uses false statistics (i.e. graduate employment rates and graduates' salaries) to lure and retain prospective law students .

The New York law firm handling the heavy lifting in the suit, Kurzon Strauss, is also suing the New York Law School on nearly identical grounds, but in state court.  Each suit seeks hundreds of millions in tuition refunds from the respective law schools.

Last month, Kurzon Strauss was on the receiving end of a law suit filed by Cooley, alleging defamation.  The firm had been trolling around Craigslist and Facebook soliciting candidates for its class action suit.  Understandably, Cooley wanted to get the drop on the firm and steal the negative publicity thunder such a suit would generate.  Always the publicity gurus over there at Cooley.

Cooley will probably use the same law firm on defense as they do on offense; Miller Canfield.  One way or another, this litigation will siphon-off some of Cooley's rich profits as they continue to tap deeply into the American Dream, lawyer-style.

August 2013 Post Script: Now, several years later, the US District Court dismissed the Cooley alumni law suit and in granting the FRCP 12(b)(6) motion, District Judge Gordon Quist was not kind to Cooley's self-serving rankings, characterizing the behemoth as a bottom dweller.  Judge Quist's opinion is here.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: attorney,Cooley Law School,Craigslist,Facebook,law student,lawyer,Miller Canfield,Steve Hyder,U.S. District Court

Privacy & Intellectual Property on Facebook

This post is the original content of Geoff Livingston, a blogger from the Washington D.C. area recognized as a social media and blogging "expert" by the Washington Post.  His 2007 book, Now is Gone was hailed by the WSJ as a valuable resource for those interested in mining social media.

The topics of privacy and intellectual property relative to Facebook are intertwined and receive recurring attention.  Here is Geoff's recent post:

Have you read Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities? I decided to after talking to a Facebook IP lawyer. There are some serious dangers for content marketers on Facebook:

“For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (“IP content”), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (“IP License”).”

AND

“You will not tag users or send email invitations to non-users without their consent.”

If someone is using content as a means to market to their potential customers, the first statement presents huge issues. It’s clear that protecting IP is hard on Facebook given these terms.

While the same statement offers IP protections, Facebook is clearly soft on enforcement. Basically, for someone to get in trouble for using your copyrighted content without your permission, it requires someone to “repeatedly infringe” for Facebook to take action.

All in all, your content is not safe on Facebook, IMO. It’s best to use secondary services such as a blog, a video site or a photo site, and link back in if protecting copyright is an issue.

On the tagging front, I was particularly interested as this is a common form of marketing wares on Facebook, one I often interpret to be spam. Apparently, if you tag someone in a manner that they do not approve, it REALLY IS spam.

Reading the same policy, “You will not send or otherwise post unauthorized commercial communications (such as spam) on Facebook.” Facebook has demonstrated it is adamant about policing spammers on its network. It is actively prosecuting abusers of its spamming policy and suing them.

In essence, if you use tags with your content or posts to market your services, you are spamming people. No ifs or ands about it. If the people who are being tagged decide to report you, it’s likely that you will find little leniency from Facebook.

The lesson for content marketers, don’t hard sell on Facebook. Tagging should be soft, clearly benefiting the community members mentioned. Otherwise it’s best to try other social network services to achieve your goals.

info@clarkstonlegal.com

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

Read more »

Posted in: attorney,electronic criminal lawyer,Facebook,Geoff Livingston,intellectual property,Now is Gone,privacy rights,social media

Judges Cannot "Friend" Lawyers Via Social Media Says Florida Supreme Court

A few of my Facebook friends are judges.  They've taken a low profile on the news feed.  Will Michigan's Judicial Tenure Commission, formed in 1968 via constitutional amendment, seek to outlaw such social network connections like the State of Florida?

In Florida, the Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issued a 11/17/2009 decision, holding that judges may not connect with attorneys on Facebook, or similar social networking media.  The Committee's decision is based on a Florida's judicial canon prohibiting the appearance that a lawyer, or anyone else, is in a special position to influence the judge.

Floridian judges, however, remain free to post comments to their non-lawyer "friends", and can develop "fan pages" to help with their reelection campaigns.  Only the attorney-judge connection is now taboo in Florida.
The Ethics Advisory Committee stated that, "judges cannot isolate themselves entirely from the real world and cannot be expected to avoid all friendships outside of their judicial responsibilities, some restrictions upon a judge’s conduct are inherent in the office."


Ethics are catching-up slowly with attorneys and judges in the web 2.0 world.  Some states, like Louisiana, New York, and now Florida, have taken a restrictive view of lawyer's and judge's permissible activities on such sites.  


Linked-In, Twitter, and Facebook remain available to our judges.  You can expect Michigan's never shy Judicial Tenure Commission to address the situation as soon as the right case rolls around.  Shouldn't be too long... Stay tuned.


info@clarkstonlegal.com


www.clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Facebook,Florida Supreme Court,Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee of Florida,Linked In,Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission,Twitter

Divorce and Facebook: Privacy Be Gone

Is there any privacy among partners in a marriage; among parties to a divorce proceeding? In this web 2.0 era, some people are their own worst enemy.

Photos or statements posted on the web lose all aspects of privacy. Deleting a post does not remove it from cyberspace. The Internet is rich terrain for discovery-seeking divorce lawyers.

In a divorce, it is advisable to maintain privacy and restrict confidences to one's professional counselors. Why then, are so many people drawn to plastering their every move -including their horrible gaffs- on the Internet via the web's easily accesible variety of social networking platforms?

A recent Time magazine article analyzes this trend in the divorce context:
http://tinyurl.com/m9n6lh
The article includes a link to five "Facebook Don'ts":
http://tinyurl.com/nml7vq

No doubt, lawyers can and do take advantage of web postings in custody battles and in the property division contest. If you need to have a web posting preserved, or have the source of a post tracked, contact our firm to assess your options.

Read more »

Posted in: divorce,Facebook,privacy,Web 2.0