Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons^™

Negative Commentary—Negative Consequences: Legal Ethics, Social Media, And The Impact Of Explosive Commentary, Jan L. Jacobowitz Ms.

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

Connecting and sharing on social media has opened communication channels and provided instantaneous information to billions of people worldwide. Commentary on current events, cases, and negative online reviews may be posted in an instant, often without pause or thought about the potential repercussions. This global phenomenon may not only provide news of the day updates, humor, and support for those in need but also is replete with ethical landmines for the unwary lawyer. Lawyers commenting on current events, their cases, or responding to a client’s negative online review, have suffered damage to their careers. In some instances, they have even …

Ethical Limitations On Lawyer-To-Lawyer Online Consultations Regarding Pending Cases, Robert Derner

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

This comment explains how and when lawyer-to-lawyer consultations are permitted in the online world. In all lawyer-to-lawyer consultations, but especially with the online variety, a lawyer must avoid violating the principle of confidentiality when consulting other lawyers about client matters. While in-person lawyer-to-lawyer consultations have been commonplace in the legal profession for decades, the rise of listservs and social media networks has caused many lawyers to seek advice from colleagues on the Internet.

In considering online lawyer-to-lawyer consultations, there are two major issues. Firstly, a lawyer must determine whether the jurisdiction in which he or she practices permits online lawyer-to-lawyer …

Electronic Social Media: Friend Or Foe For Judges, M. Sue Kurita

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

The use of electronic social communication has grown at a phenomenal rate. Facebook, the most popular social networking website, has over 1,968,000,000 users—a number that has exponentially grown since its inception in 2004. The number of judges accessing and using electronic social media (ESM) has also increased. However, unlike the general population, judges must consider constitutional, ethical, technical, and evidentiary implications when they use and access ESM. The First Amendment forbids “abridging the freedom of speech” and protects the expression of personal ideas, positions, and views. However, the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct and the Texas Code …