Slashdot Mirror


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."'"

38 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. The Book by MikeMacK · · Score: 4, Funny

    Gives new meaning to the term "throwing the book" at you...

    1. Re:The Book by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Judge Roberts and Attorney Smith are no longer friends, they've changed their relationship to "It's complicated. (See Florida ethics board 'Opinion Number: 2009-20' for futher clarification)"

  2. Really? by Khris · · Score: 4, Funny

    When are we going to realize that the further we push issues like this, the more damage we're doing to our society. Pretty soon it's going to be illegal to look at someone if they're having a bad hair day assuming it's Thursday of the 5th month with a full moon happening within 3 days.

  3. Florida Lawyer Jack Thompson is Lonely. by jameskojiro · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is lonely because no one wants to friend him in Facebook.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  4. Another Example by CranberryKing · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Another Example by genghisjahn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lighten up. Make some friends.

      --
      Sorry about the mess.
  5. Fore! by mswhippingboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    1. Re:Fore! by NoYob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
  6. Since when is THAT a crime? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Since when is THAT a crime? by grantsellis · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sorry, but you lost me at, "If Hollywood has taught me anything about the Judiciary system," Because if Hollywood has taught me anything about the judicial system, it's that attorneys in criminal courts are people who are better looking than people you meet in real life, crime scene videos are infinitely zoomable so you can see the killer's microscopic tattoos, that judges like you to give a mini-criminal procedure lecture every time you make an objection, and that juries are actually impressed by grandstanding.

  7. what???? by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    1. Re:what???? by idontgno · · Score: 2, Funny

      because these people are most like friends outside of facebook.

      NO!

      NO WAI!

      There's no such thing as friends outside of Facebook! In fact, there's no such thing as PEOPLE outside of Facebook. Those people out there walking around? Facebookers I haven't friended. Yet.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  8. It's common sense by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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."

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:It's common sense by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:It's common sense by Khris · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:It's common sense by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    4. Re:It's common sense by Again · · Score: 5, Funny

      [...]You can't bubble wrap the entire world! [...]

      Bubble wrap... the entire world... *stares into distance* That would be awesome!!!

    5. Re:It's common sense by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    6. Re:It's common sense by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hence the provisions in your legal system to disqualify a judge based on a potential conflict of interest,

      Right. And, because this is a legal system, there need to be defined standards of what is a potential conflict of interest.

      ...worse off is the fact that a social networking site is the basis to decide if a conflict of interest exists..

      It is not the basis for making the decision. It is a basis.

      who has friends on there facebook list they barely know? I'm sure more than a few of you.

      The law is that judges should not have a conflict of interest, or an appearance of a conflict of interest.

      This is good. I don't want judges to have conflicts of interest, and I don't want them to even have appearances of conflict of interest. Judges should be disinterested.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    7. Re:It's common sense by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:It's common sense by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:It's common sense by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and judges can manipulate the jury to get the verdict that they want. Juries are meant to use the interpretation of the law fed to them by the judge (and few of them realise that they can ignore it; even less would even know where to begin to figure it out for themselves). We saw it in one of those RIAA cases - the judge gave the jury instructions which had no foundation in law, and the jury promptly brought in an insane verdict. Now, in that case, the judge was probably just incompetent, and the jury's decision was chucked because the instructions were so badly wrong. A malicious judge, who is trying to deliberately stitch someone up for their buddy the prosecutor, could be much more subtle and get away with it.

      The paraphrase Yes Minister:

      BW: "Guidelines are perfectly proper minister, everyone has guidelines for their work"
      JH: "I thought these planning inspectors were supposed to be impartial"
      BW: "Well, so they are minister. Trains are impartial too, but if you lay the tracks in one direction, that's the way they go"

      --
      FGD 135
    10. Re:It's common sense by fyrewulff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
  9. Re:I agree by sthomas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. Seems like the simpler resolution is by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:Seems like the simpler resolution is by SOdhner · · Score: 4, Funny

      Man, if that were how it worked I know a few lawyers who would immediately send out friend requests to certain judges. "Wait, I never have to deal with _____ again? SCORE!"

  11. They do it anyway... by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:blah blah blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  13. What if both lawyers are friends by SomeJoel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    1. Re:What if both lawyers are friends by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I see a huge conflict of interest. If they are both "Friends" of the judge whats to say they all aren't "Friends".

      Prosecution: "Hey I'm kind of on a hot streak right now and I could be moving up if I get a good record this year"

      Defense: "Alright, I'll let you have it, but he's really innocent and didn't do alot of harm"

      Judge: "Okay, minimal sentence it is!"

  14. Re:Not for teens anymore? by CecilPL · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I do call my friends. At least the ones that I hang out with regularly. However, it's just not possible to maintain friendships with the hundreds of people I've met over the years - though I would still like to stay in touch. Traditionally these were the people who you'd get a Christmas card from with a quick update on what they've been up to once a year. Facebook allows you to stay in closer contact without having to devote hours a day to calling everyone you know.

    For example, I was going skiing a couple weeks ago. I noticed on facebook that one of my elementary school friends was going to the same mountain the same day. I suggested we meet there for lunch - we did and spent an hour catching up.

    That's the benefit of facebook.

  15. On a slightly unrelated note by macragge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I recently had the privilege of serving as a juror in a DUI trial. I was quite pleased to discover that the Judge appeared unbiased, if not slightly more lenient towards the defense.

    Also, the defense attorney poked so many holes in the prosecutor's argument: that the jury only had to deliberate for about ten minutes. I was absolutely shocked to learn that he was a public defender.

    On top of that, the defendant was a black male from the city while the jury was entirely white suburbanites.

    Going into the trail, I expected that the system was going to screw the defendant, but the Judge showed no bias, the Public Defender was competent, and the Jury presumed the defendant to be innocent. Now I feel like the media is full of shit.

    1. Re:On a slightly unrelated note by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  16. Disconnect from society by thickdiick · · Score: 3, Informative

    They really are disconnected from society. Same with the police. If you've ever ready about or spoken to someone in a police academy, you will know that they encourage recruits to only hang out with other law enforcement officers, to only play in their sports leagues, et cetera; it indoctrinates a "us" vs "the public" mentality that follows the officer for the rest of their life. I don't know if that translates to the situation of the judges, but one can presume that an individual given such immense power, a sizeable paycheque, and so little accountability as a judge soon enough develops little connection to "everyone else."

  17. Re:Overly literal by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  18. Re:I agree by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, it's important that we avoid the appearance of impropriety. Especially if actual impropriety is occurring.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  19. Easy solution by ascari · · Score: 2, Funny

    Use MySpace!

  20. Re:oblig. Godwin by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, and if Hitler were alive and on Facebook today

    If Hitler was alive and on the internet we'd know how WW2 would have gone....

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.