Judges Can't "Friend" Lawyers in Florida

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that Florida's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee has found in a recent opinion that judges and lawyers can no longer be Facebook friends. The committee says that when judges 'friend' lawyers who may appear before them, it creates the appearance of a conflict of interest, since it 'reasonably conveys to others the impression that these lawyer "friends" are in a special position to influence the judge.' Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics expert at New York University, says the Florida rule goes too far. 'In my view, they are being hypersensitive because in the case of a truly close friendship between a judge and a lawyer involved in a case, the other side can simply seek to disqualify the judge. Judges do not "drop out of society when they become judges," Gillers says. "The people who were their friends before they went on the bench remained their friends, and many of them were lawyers." Still, legal sycophants can take heart: lawyers can declare themselves Facebook "fans" of judges, the committee says, "as long as the judge or committee controlling the site cannot accept or reject the lawyer's listing of himself or herself on the site."'"

Comments

Another Example

[CranberryKing]

of how social networks are only going to bite you in the ass eventually.

Re:Another Example

[genghisjahn]

Lighten up. Make some friends.

Fore!

[mswhippingboy]

Of course, there's no problem if they all play golf together at their country club. It's the "appearance" of conflict of interest thats the problem here, not the "actual" conflict of interest that goes on all the time.

Re:Fore!

[NoYob]

Of course, there's no problem if they all play golf together at their country club. It's the "appearance" of conflict of interest thats the problem here, not the "actual" conflict of interest that goes on all the time.

There you go.

And I for one would rather have any relationship between a judge and a lawyer be public knowledge.

It would be worse if their friendship were secret.

Since when is THAT a crime?

[Monkeedude1212]

If Hollywood has taught me anything about the Judiciary system, its that the prosecution and the judge are always the best of friends, know each other by first name, and might even have a heart to heart during recess.

Seriously though, I'm sure it'd be more beneficial if they tried to stop the ACTUAL conflict of interest instead of trying to stop THE APPEARANCE of conflict of interest.

what????

[OrangeMonkey11]

This is just dumb; you're still going to have conflict of interest anyway because these people are most like friends outside of facebook.

It's common sense

[Geoffrey.landis]

This seems weird, but it does actually make sense.

Frankly, if I had to go before a court, I definitely would be very perturbed if the opposing lawyer was a friend of the judge-- yes, even a "facebook friend."

Re:It's common sense

[Monkeedude1212]

But there's the problem. If the opposing lawyer was a friend of the judge (Like actual friend, not just a FB friend), wouldn't you like to be able to look that up on Facebook?

Instead of trying to hide the friendship, it should be forced to be public.

Re:It's common sense

[Khris]

The only difference here is that you have a visual representation via Facebook. The opposing lawyer could be friends of the judge regardless of whether they are Facebook friends, and in that case, you'd never even know. This is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of countless people's time and energy. We're taking things far too far under the guise of trying to protect everyone. You can't bubble wrap the entire world! Let people make mistakes and then learn from them rather than precluding people from being able to make those mistakes and learn. Life experience is a huge asset. Being forced to blindly follow the whim of others benefits no one.

Re:It's common sense

[SydShamino]

What if the laywer and judge were LinkedIn "contacts"? Does that make it better?

Re:It's common sense

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, this would help the oposing party.

If I'm suing someone, and their lawyer is facebook friends with the judge, I can get the judge replaced if it bothers me.

If I'm suing someone, and their lawyer is friends with the judge, I can't do a damn thing about it because I never knew.

Since when do we care more about appearance than open disclosure

Re:It's common sense

[Mr. Slippery]

What if the laywer and judge were LinkedIn "contacts"? Does that make it better?

Yes, I should think so. Having someone as a LinkedIn "contact" indicates that you are familiar with and respect their professional work, whereas being someone's Facebook "friend" mean that you are hearing about (looking at my friends' recent posts) their politics, what clothes they're buying, their religion, jokes they're sharing, their dogs, their exercise program, their kids, their cats...

Re:It's common sense

[Monkeedude1212]

Very serious.

When taking up such a high seat you are entitled a VERY LARGE amount of power. You can decide if someone spends a fraction of their savings, or all of it, or if they spend part of their life in jail, the rest of their life in jail, or in some states, to even end their life.

With that power comes responsibility. You are expected to be perfectly impartial, unbiased, and free of all prejudice.

Given two options:

1) Your friends list at the cost of a biased judge in the future

2) A fair trial in the future at the cost of your facebook friends list

Which would you choose? I've already stated mine.

Re:It's common sense

[Shakrai]

or in some states, to even end their life.

Minor point, but no, judges can't decide this. Not unless the 12 members of the jury also decide it.

Re:It's common sense

[fyrewulff]

I was on a jury.

The jury has to follow the judge's instructions. You cannot go outside of them. You are not allowed to use your 'expert knowledge' of anything as a juror - anything you argue on with each other has to be based on 'common knowledge'. IE, we can use basic physics as part of me arguing that the car hit the other one really fast, but I could not say they hit each other fast because I know the exact deformation mathematical model of a Ford Taurus.

So yes, the judge sets up the instructions, but the jury ultimately decides it. If you have a judge writing shitty instructions, vote his ass out.

Not for teens anymore?

[ZDRuX]

I'm sorry, I might be a bit behind the times but... does anybody above the age of 16 actually use Facebook?! I'm 27, and Facebook has been around for quite some time now, and I still cannot find what the appeal is.

If you want to know what someone is doing, why not ask them?! You *DO* have their phone number don't you? They ARE your friend aren't they?..

At any rate, what could possibly be *fun* for a grown educated adult like a judge on Facebook? Can anyone enlighten me?

Re:I agree

[sthomas]

I with you on it making sense. Also, if a lawyer feels really great about his chance of a victory and posts that he's about to win his case, the judge would see that update. Then if the judge rules in his favor it gives the appearance that the lawyer received foreknowledge of a ruling. If it doesn't go his way, the judge could be argued to have ruled the other way to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

It's easier to just separate them, because in every court case someone will be unhappy with the outcome and looking for something to blame it on.

Seems like the simpler resolution is

[Maxo-Texas]

if a lawyer and judge are facebook friends then they are automatically unable to work together.

Right now you ban the record of the friendship so the best of buds can work the same case.

They do it anyway...

[CuteSteveJobs]

Whether or not they declare it in Facebook, judges and lawyers do "friend" in real life. You have to wonder how often a judge gives a lawyer a break because of this. What the Facebooking of friends does is lift the veil off this and make bias easier to spot. I would say it's a good thing, and what I'd really like to see is computers used for a deeper statistical analysis of courtroom decisions by judges with certain lawyers.

I'm sure the legal profession would hate the very idea of this, but these days judges seemed vastly disconnected from society. Every time I hear a judge screech "*My* court" or make a dumb ass decision it's apparent they've forgotten they're nothing more than pubic servants, albeit overpaid and wearing silly black capes and/or pompous wigs. This is theater only the very rich can afford to participate in. The whole legal system needs to be tossed out on it's ass and reinvented from scratch.

Re:blah blah blah

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nonsense. Lawyers are usually friends with many lawyers. Some of those lawyers will end up as judges. Are you saying that they have to stop being friends the moment another lawyer becomes a judge? Judges and lawyers are going to run into each other socially as well. Would you require them to completely ignore each other anytime they see each other outside the courtroom?

Judges and lawyers are people too. If you start putting ridiculous restrictions on them, you are going to find less people willing to enter the profession.

As the article states, Judges already must recuse themselves if one of the lawyers is a *close* personal friend. That's reasonable. However, there is a huge difference between a "close personal friend" and a "Facebook" friend. Most people on Facebook have *many* Facebook friends. A Facebook friend is not necessarily anything more than an acquaintance. No one would force a Judge to recuse herself just because the Judge has *met* one of the lawyers before... so why should we require recusal for being friends on Facebook, which could mean even less?

What if both lawyers are friends

[SomeJoel]

I fail to see a conflict of interest if the defense lawyer and the prosecutor are both "friends" of the judge.
Unless of course you start weighing how much each friend means to the judge, relatively speaking.
But that path leads to madness.

Re:Overly literal

[maxume]

I am starting to think that they are acting to protect the legal profession; if the lawyers and judges are publicly posting their relationship, later on someone can cry foul about it, if they don't publish the notice, there is less to cry foul about it.

Re:On a slightly unrelated note

[TheRaven64]

Now I feel like the media is full of shit

You know all those stories about police officers being courteous and helpful that you read? And all those stories about the legal system working as intended? Stories about teachers that didn't molest the children? You don't read these because they are not news. News is when something unusual or unexpected happens. No one wants - or needs - to hear when things work, only when they need fixing. The media is not full of shit (well, with some exceptions), but they document news, not everyday occurrences.