Legalethics.com

Florida: Judges can’t “Friend” lawyers who appear before them on Facebook

prfhricik — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:51:00 +0000

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!

Adobe Flash Plug-In Creates Tracking Issues

prfhricik — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:32:14 +0000

An article in Wired Magazine reports that half of the Internet’s top websites use a little known feature in the Flash plug-in that allows for tracking of browsing activity and gathering of “private” information. Ryan Singel, You Deleted Your Cookies? Think Again (Aug. 2009).

South Carolina Issues Opinion that Impacts Linked In, Plaxo, Avvo and related services

prfhricik — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:56:58 +0000

The South Carolina bar association addressed a hypothetical webside that listed attorneys without their involvement, and allows “clients” and others to “rate” the attorney. The bar association held that a lawyer could claim his listing in this service, but that all comments made about him were subject to the advertising rules. “[A]ll content in a claimed listing must conform to” the advertising rules, so held the opinion. It also basically says a laywer can’t solicit improper endorsements, and so on.

Frankly, this one baffles me. I can understand why you can’t ask someone to say something about you that you can’t yourself say, because of Rule 8.4, but am I really under an obligation to make sure non-clients comply with the lawyer advertising rules? Stay tuned, but in the meanwhile, you South Carolina lawyers better go read your various listings, I suppose including Face book!

It’s not online yet, but presumably shortly will be here. I’ll gladly email you a copy if you email hricik_d@law.mercer.edu

Fake Anti-virus software Acts as Trojan Horse

prfhricik — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:28:04 +0000

There’s an article here about criminals using “anti-virus” software to plant trojan horses that let them intercept communications, and more.

Contacts on Facebook can Cause Problems

prfhricik — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:13:28 +0000

A Tennessee woman was arrested for virtually “poking” someone on Facebook, violating a TRO. You can read about it here.

A few months back, a Philadelphia bar opinion held that a lawyer could not use a fake “name” on facebook to become befriended so as to gain access to an opposing party’s home page, as it violated Rules 4.2, 4.3 and 8.4. That opinion is here.

Digital Voicemail: Practically Useful, but a Litigation Landmine?

prfhricik — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:39:33 +0000

There’s an interesting article on this subject here.

Vermont issues opinion on metadata

prfhricik — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:35:26 +0000

Vermont Bar Association Professional Responsibility Section Opinion 2009-1 concluded that a lawyer could “search” for metadata, but may have an obligation to notify the sender of the existence of the metadata pursuant to Rule 4.4(b)

Verdict Thrown Out due to Juror’s Google Searches

prfhricik — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:16:28 +0000

In Russo v. Takata Corp., _ N.W.2d __ (S.D. 2009) after a person who became a juror was summoned, but before being seated as a juror, the person ran some Google searches pertaining to seatbelts made by the defendant in a wrongful death action. The verdict was set aside for juror misconduct.

New Hampshire Attorneys May Not Use Hidden Metadata

Peterk — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 04:35:18 +0000

New Hampshire attorneys may not search for, review, or use metadata in electronic materials received from opposing counsel. New Hampshire Bar Ass’n. Ethics Comm., Op 2008-2009/4 (April 16, 2009)

Pennslyvania Lawyers Can Examine Metadata Hidden in Documents

Peterk — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 04:31:22 +0000

Pennsylvania lawyers who receive electronic content from opposing counsel can examine metadata hidden in documents and use it for the client’s benefits. Pennsylvania Bar Ass’n, Comm. on Legal Ethics and Professn’l. Responsibility, Formal Op. 2009-100