Judges and Lawyers are Not Facebook Friends

Yes, Facebook is everywhere.  My 70-year old grandpa is even on the social networking site, updating his status almost daily!  Although his posts range from the dinner he ate the night before to his latest hobby, it is still an entertaining way to keep in touch with my grandpa.

Recently, a Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opines on ethical issues relating to judges’ use of social networking sites like Facebook.  The verdict…judges may not be “friends” (cyber speaking that is) with lawyers.

The rationale makes sense in that the presence of social networking provides another avenue for conflict of interest concerns.  If the judge is friends with lawyers it may give the impression that they may be in a special place of influence with the judge.  Lawyers, however, are allowed to be “fans” of a judge’s Facebook page.

Concern for judicial conflicts of interests has also been addressed by the Supreme Court.  The case involved money (in the form of campaign donations), power and judicial politics in West Virginia.  Because the controversy of judge’s accepting campaign donations from the lawyers, corporations, and other interests that will potentially become plaintiffs and defendants in their future courtrooms has prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether big spending on a judge’s election can create an unconstitutional “appearance of bias” that violates the guarantee of due process of law in the Constitution. The court’s 5 to 4 decision on judicial recusal “added the risk of bias to two other standards the court has set for when judges should recuse themselves from a case: when they have a financial interest in the case or when their previous involvement in a case makes it difficult for them to be impartial arbiters.”

Conflict of interest is an aspect of law that is taken very seriously, and rightfully so.  The basic crux of the argument is that if a judge is no longer about to be impartial and unbiased in their decision making, then they must recuse themselves from the case.  If there is a situation in which a judge declines recusal even though aware that proper grounds exist, then there can be significant repercussions including a mistrial, disbarment, and sanctions.

Although I doubt that the presence of a Facebook friendship with a lawyer would rise to the level of influence the Supreme Court was concerned about, better safe than sorry.  I wonder what they’ll do to address judicial tweeting?