The Florida Bar: We'll Tell You Who You Can Be Friends With

With a straight face, The Florida Bar determined at it's December 11th meeting of the Board of Governors, the following in regard to lawyer websites: (AVVO's General Counsel Josh King has his thoughts here).

[1] Lawyers’ use of online social networking sites is subject to the same rules as lawyer Web sites.

[2] Web site visitors (meaning "stupid potential clients that we need to protect from big bad lawyers) must view a disclaimer page that clearly indicates what information will be viewed, including: That page could include whether all results or client testimonials are provided, that the results or testimonials are not necessarily representative of results obtained by the lawyer or all clients’ experience with the lawyer, and that a prospective client’s individual facts and circumstances may differ from the matter(s) in which the results or testimonial are provided.

The disclaimer also has to say that, (this is great) the information behind the disclaimer is not regulated by Bar advertising rules. (As Elmer Fudd would say: be berwey berwey careful).

[3] On the disclaimer page, the viewer has to accept or acknowledge receipt of the information before being given access to pages that follow. (Merry Christmas to web-site designers).

Oh, and lookie here, according to the Florida Bar News Article: The committee acted at the request of Ft. Lauderdale lawyer Peter T. Boyd, who owns PaperStreet Web Design, a company that designs Web sites for other lawyers.

And here's more protection for those idiot potential clients who the Bar wants to protect: The information would be considered “upon request” only if the lawyer sets the Web site up to block (BLOCK!) the area containing past results and testimonials from viewers who have not submitted acknowledgement of viewing the disclaimer page, and the testimonials and/or past results would only be shown upon submission of the agreement after viewing the disclaimer page.

Seriously folks, when will we realize that Bar advertising rules are nothing more than calling potential clients "stupid?"

Now that we're done making sure potential clients are protected from themselves when viewing lawyer websites, lets move to social networking.

Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Twitter, and all other social networking sites are now subject to Rule 4-7.2, but are not required to be filed for review.

No statements that characterize the quality of legal services being offered; provide information regarding past results; or include testimonials. No, no, no.

Lawyers are not responsible for other party’s postings,(yet), unless the lawyer prompts the posting or uses the other party to circumvent the lawyer advertising rules.

And this is the absolute best:

Invitations to a third party to view or link to the lawyer’s social networking page on an unsolicited basis are considered in-person solicitation and violate Rule 4-7.4(a), unless the third party is the lawyer’s current client, former client, relative, or another lawyer.

Oh, and YouTube postings must comply with Rule 4-7.2, except the requirement they be submitted to the Bar for review.

The Bar did note in asking for a six-month moratorium on enforcement, that "the practical effect is most lawyer Web sites are out of compliance with the new rules.

All of this is utterly ridiculous, and displays a complete lack of understanding of social media. I have no problem with keeping lawyers honest - whether it's in person, or on-line, but the Bar has rules to cover this already:

RULE 4-8.4 MISCONDUCT

A lawyer shall not:

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation....

That's pretty clear to me.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com

Are You A Judge's "Friend?" Keep It Off Facebook

The Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issued this opinion regarding judges on Facebook.

The opinion: Judges may not add lawyers who may appear before the judge as "friends" on a social networking site, and permit such lawyers to add the judge as their "friend."

Sigh.

The committee started with this premise: According to Facebook, "your friends on Facebook are the same friends, acquaintances and family members that you communicate with in the real world."

All together now, everyone who's on Facebook - that's a load of crap.

My friends on Facebook are mostly my "Facebook friends." Other than my high school friends and others I know personally, most I've never met. They are fellow lawyers and other interesting, or not, folks.

Every so often those of us on Facebook are standing in line at Starbucks, or attending some cocktail party and someone will say "hey, we're Facebook friends."

But when it comes to judges, in Florida, the committee has determined that "friend" is real, and real unethical: "....to identify lawyers who may appear in front of the judge as “friends” on the judge's page and to permit those lawyers to identify the judge as a “friend” on their pages.....would violate Canon 2B."

Canon 2B states: "A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge."

The committee recognized that "....judges cannot isolate themselves entirely from the real world and cannot be expected to avoid all friendships outside of their judicial responsibilities....," but "....believes that listing lawyers who may appear before the judge as “friends” on a judge's social networking page reasonably conveys to others the impression that these lawyer “friends” are in a special position to influence the judge."

The committee's ruling is sound, but useless. The word "friend" is at the core of the ruling. I wonder, if the term used on Facebook was "person I know," would the committee have an issue?

Wouldn't you as a lawyer want to know that the lawyer is "friends" with the judge? Wouldn't you rather see the connection on Facebook and be able to ask the relevant questions? "Are you real friends, or just Facebook friends?"

Perhaps it's better we don't see the "friendship" on-line. Let's keep it on the golf courses, restaurants, vacation spots and poker games.

That way, no one will know.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com

The Bar Applicant Facebook Freakout

While "how to make money as a lawyer" sadly continues to be the most popular google search leading people to this blog, "should I delete my Facebook page," and "will the Florida Bar see my Facebook page," are coming in a close second.

I think the better question is "am I a complete moron?"

If you're in law school, even these days, you must have some semblance of intelligence. What is it that causes you to question that ANYTHING YOU WRITE ON THE INTERNET CAN BE SEEN BY SOMEONE ELSE?

I know, you have set your Facebook page to the highest privacy settings and think you're protected. OK. Keep thinking that, you'll make a great lawyer.

The reality is this: you have a Facebook page, tweet on twitter, (hopefully you don't have a myspace account if you are over 14 and have a job), for the sole purpose of publicising your thoughts and pictures.

If you are scared that others may see your thoughts and pictures, stop posting your thoughts and pictures.

If this makes no sense to you, drop out of law school, today. Please.
Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com