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."'"
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.
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.
[...]You can't bubble wrap the entire world! [...]
Bubble wrap... the entire world... *stares into distance* That would be awesome!!!
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.
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.