Legalethics.com

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!

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).

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

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

     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.

There’s an interesting article on this subject here.

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)

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 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)

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

The Florida Supreme Court rejected the state bar’s proposed rule amendments on lawyer web site advertising. See In re Amendments to teh Rules Regulating the Florida Bar - Rule 4-7.6, Computer Accessed Communications (Feb 27, 2009).

Professors Monroe Freedman, Andrew Perlman, and a slew of judges and other experts participated at Mercer Law School’s symposium on ethical issues in the digital age, and the transcript is available on line, here. I urge you to read especially Professor Freedman’s opening remarks, “Whatever happened to the search for the truth?”

Here is the introduction (sans links):

On November 6-7, 2008, the Center for Legal Ethics and Professionalism and the Mercer Law Review hosted the Ninth Annual Georgia Symposium on Professionalism and Ethics. The title of the symposium was “Ethics and Professionalism in the Digital Age.” The Mercer Law Review will be publishing transcripts of all the sessions and related papers prepared by the participants. Video of the events is available for viewing by clicking on the links below. For a listing of all speakers and their biographies, click here.

The annual symposia on professionalism and ethics are funded by an endowment created by order of the Honorable Hugh Lawson, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia. The order settled allegations of litigation misconduct in exchange for payments that fund the symposia and funded the creation of academic chairs devoted to ethics and professionalism at the Walter F. George School of Law of Mercer University, the University of Georgia School of Law, the Georgia State University School of Law, and the Emory University School of Law.

This year’s symposium began with a dinner on the evening of November 6 at the Cox Capitol Theatre in downtown Macon. Professor Monroe Freedman delivered the keynote address, entitled “Whatever Happened to the Search for Truth?” To see Professor Freedman’s speech, click here.

The next morning, there were two panel discussions related to issues of ethics and professionalism in e-discovery. In the first panel, Jason R. Baron, the Director of Litigation for the National Archives and Records Administration, presented his paper on “E-Discovery and the Problem of Asymmetric Knowledge.” To see a written version of Mr. Baron’s remarks, click here. The two responders to Mr. Baron’s presentation were Chilton Varner, a partner at King & Spalding in Atlanta, and The Honorable John M. Facciola, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Columbia. To see the first panel discussion, click here.

The second panel discussion began with a presentation by Ralph C. Losey, a Shareholder at Akerman Senterfitt in Orlando, Florida. Mr. Losey spoke on “The Wicked Quadrant – A Theoretical Construct to Understand Unethical Behavior in E-Discovery.” The responders to Mr. Losey’s presentation were William F. Hamilton, a partner at Holland & Knight in Tampa, Florida, and The Honorable David A. Baker, United States Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of Florida. To see the second panel discussion, click here.

In the afternoon, there were two additional panel discussions. The first concerned the internet and lawyer marketing. Jack Sammons, Griffin Bell Professor of Law at the Walter F. George School of Law at Mercer, moderated a panel discussion that included Paula J. Frederick, Deputy General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia, Diane L. Karpman of Karpman & Associates in Beverly Hills, California, and Micah Buchdahl, President of HTMLawyers, Inc. in Moorestown, New Jersey. To see the third panel discussion, click here.

The final panel discussion of the day concerned the special issues of ethics and professionalism that surround the use of metadata. Professor David Hricik of Mercer conducted the discussion, with Professor Andrew Perlman of Suffolk Law School in Boston and Carolyn Southerland, Managing Director of the Huron Consulting Group in Houston, as his panelists. To see the last panel discussion, click here.

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 New York Rules of Professional Conduct effective April 2009. Additional Professional Standard resources are available from teh State Bar.

There’s an article about the settlement of a so-called trademark suit by Jones Day against Blockshopper here A summary of events in the lawsuit, here

The defendant reportedly incurred more than $100,000 in defense costs as a result of what many viewed as a baseless lawsuit.

.