The story about what it portrays as a growing use of social media by debt collectors is here.
The article is here.
An article and link to the proposed amendment to emphasize that communication about a case is off limits whether on the Internet or not is here. Trial lawyers should consider asking for an instruction like this no matter where the venue.
The article with links to the proposal are here. To avoid getting any Kentucky readers in trouble, please don’t blog about this! 
The article with several links is here.
It is by Professor Gregory Duhl and Jaclyn Miller, and is available here.
An article is here. This is becoming a critical issue, since jurors can now “view” accident scenes without having to drive anywhere; they can “research” technologies from their homes; and they can find all sorts of information out, without the protections of evidentiary rules. I’ve heard tales that some consultants are relying on jurors to violate these admonitions and so are planting information — good for them, bad for the other side — and working to make sure it shows up when jurors look on line rather than in the court room for evidence.
There’s a new New York case here. I don’t see this as news, since putting “private” on my diary doesn’t make it immune from discovery (if it’s relevant, and, come to think of it, if I had a diary), but the issue gets litigated. Lesson: make sure your clients know that “private” doesn’t mean “nondiscoverable.”
The opinion is here.
Professor Hricik’s paper on ethics and the Internet, which includes coverage of ethical issues created by use of social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace, as well as linking by clients to lawyer webpages, and other issues, is available on-line here.
Kentucky judges may participate in social networking sites such as Facebook but a judge must carefully consider the nature of the relationship with an attorney. Judicial Ethics Opinion JE-119 (January 20, 2010).
Not making this one up: the opinion is here. In a split decision, the majority reasoned that “friending” a lawyer who appeared before the judge suggested improper influence.
If you see a judge today, don’t wave!
The Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee indicates that judges may not add lawyers who may appear before the judge as “friends” on a social networking site or permit such lawyers to add the judge as their “friend.” See Opinion No. 2009-20 (November 17, 2009).
There is an interesting piece here about the potential pitfalls of twitter and facebook and other social networking sites to law firms available here.
The Philadelphia Bar Association’s Professional Guidance Committee addressed the question of an attorney trying to access Facebook and Myspace accounts of a third party witness in Ethics Opinion 2009-2 (March 2009).
(112)
(1)
(15)
(20)
(58)
(4)
(2)
(6)
(16)
(51)
(90)
(14)
(8)
(18)
(11)
(8)
(19)
(69)
(40)
(64)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(1)
(3)
(36)
(3)
(39)
(4)
(4)
(3)
(24)
(12)
(63)
(6)
(12)
(15)
(12)
(3)
(22)
(15)
(2)
(107)
(1)
(2)
