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."'"
Gives new meaning to the term "throwing the book" at you...
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.
Is lonely because no one wants to friend him in Facebook.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
of how social networks are only going to bite you in the ass eventually.
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.
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.
This is just dumb; you're still going to have conflict of interest anyway because these people are most like friends outside of facebook.
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
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.
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!>
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!"
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.
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."
Yeah, it's important that we avoid the appearance of impropriety. Especially if actual impropriety is occurring.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!