<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Legalethics.com</title>
	<link>http://www.legalethics.com</link>
	<description>Focusing on the ethical issues associated with the use of technology by legal professionals</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 01:07:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Proposed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure:  The Internet is Off Limits, Too, Jurors!</title>
		<link>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=495</link>
		<comments>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=495#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:07:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Hricik</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Texas</category>

		<category>Ex Parte Communications</category>

		<category>E-mail</category>

		<category>Discussion Groups</category>

		<category>Internet Use</category>

		<category>Computer Use</category>

		<category>Rules of Conduct</category>

		<category>Social Networking</category>

		<category>Social Computing</category>

		<category>Evidence</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.legalethics.com/?p=495</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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.

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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 <a href="http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2010/12/proposed-amendments-to-tex-civ-pro-rules-make-facebooking-about-jury-duty-a-no-no.html">here</a>.  Trial lawyers should consider asking for an instruction like this no matter where the venue.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=495</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Attorneys may need to make full disclosure when before accessing Facebook and social media sites</title>
		<link>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=501</link>
		<comments>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=501#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:15:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peterk</dc:creator>
		
		<category>e-Discovery</category>

		<category>Websites</category>

		<category>Ex Parte Communications</category>

		<category>Computer Use</category>

		<category>Pennsylvania</category>

		<category>Social Networking</category>

		<category>Social Computing</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.legalethics.com/?p=501</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Philadelphia Bar Association&#8217;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).

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Philadelphia Bar Association&#8217;s Professional Guidance Committee addressed the question of an attorney trying to access Facebook and Myspace accounts of a third party witness in <a href="http://www.philadelphiabar.org/WebObjects/PBAReadOnly.woa/Contents/WebServerResources/CMSResources/Opinion_2009-2.pdf">Ethics Opinion 2009-2</a> (March 2009).
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=501</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lawyers who participate in Internet discussion groups should avoid including any confidential information that could be associated with a particular case or controversy</title>
		<link>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=23</link>
		<comments>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=23#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2005 04:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peterk</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Confidentiality</category>

		<category>California</category>

		<category>Work Product Protection</category>

		<category>Ex Parte Communications</category>

		<category>Discussion Groups</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/?p=23</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lawyers who participate in Internet discussion groups should avoid including any confidential information that could be associated with a particular case or controversy. Postings that give identifying details about cases can result in problems such as waiver of work product protection or inadvertent communications with judges involved on a case. Los Angeles Cty. Bar. Ass&#8217;n. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lawyers who participate in Internet discussion groups should avoid including any confidential information that could be associated with a particular case or controversy. Postings that give identifying details about cases can result in problems such as waiver of work product protection or inadvertent communications with judges involved on a case. <a href="http://www.lacba.org/Files/Main%20Folder/Documents/%20Ethics%20%20%20Opinions/Files/Eth514.pdf">Los Angeles Cty. Bar. Ass&#8217;n. Professional Resp. and Ethics Comm. Formal Op. 514</a> (Aug 19, 2005).
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=23</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
