Legalethics.com

Oregon allows attorneys and agents to access private social media data in certain circumstances

Peterk — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 01:46:53 +0000

Oregon lawyers may access publicly available information on social networking sites, can request access to non-public information if the person is not represented by counsel in the matter, and may in limited circumstances advise or supervise an agent to access non-public information under Oregon’s Covert Activity Exception (Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b)). See Oregon State Bar Eth. Comm. Op. 2013-189 (Feb 2013) (note there may be an issue seeing the full opinion).

Debt Collection Agency Can’t Use Facebook to Contact Debtor, Florida Court Rules

David Hricik — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:12:17 +0000

The story about what it portrays as a growing use of social media by debt collectors is here.

Article Surveys Use of Evidence from Social Networking Sites in Personal Injury Cases

David Hricik — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:09:43 +0000

The article is here.

Proposed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure: The Internet is Off Limits, Too, Jurors!

David Hricik — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:07:46 +0000

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.

Wi fi risks: Add-on to Firefox purportedly allows hijacking of social networking user accounts when on unsecured wi fi

David Hricik — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:31:39 +0000

The article with several links is here.

Interesting Piece on Social Networking, Related Issues, and Workers’ Compensation

David Hricik — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:26:32 +0000

It is by Professor Gregory Duhl and Jaclyn Miller, and is available here.

1590

Florida Adopts Jury Instructions Admonishing Jurors not to Tweet, etc.

David Hricik — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:54:03 +0000

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.

Not really news, but: Material on Social Networking Sites, Though “Private,” Still Discoverable if Relevant

David Hricik — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:31:44 +0000

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.”

Kentucky weighs in on “can a judge have a facebook page” with a “Qualified Yes.”

David Hricik — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:20:34 +0000

The opinion is here.

Kentucky judges may participate in social networking sites such as Facebook

Peterk — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:30:26 +0000

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).