Legal Ethics--It's complicated

Many lawyers believe that they can conduct a law practice ethically following their sense of what is morally "the right thing to do."  Relying on what their mother taught them and the "smell test" they think that ethical matters can be handled intuitively.  Of course, lying, cheating and stealing are obvious ethical breaches, but legal ethics has evolved into a body of law as complex as civil procedure and other courses law students take.  Some of the rules are counter-intuitive.  Not long ago I attended a marketing seminar for lawyers where the speaker, a lawyer, proudly spoke of her practice of sending small gifts as "tokens of appreciation" to persons that brought clients to her firm.  The Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit this and I had the CLE sponsor sent a message out to the attendees bringing this to their attention.  See Va. Rule 7.3(d).

Recently I took a call from a lawyer that wanted to move to disqualfy a law firm that was adverse to the caller's client and had recently hired an associate from a very large firm.  The associate's former law firm had represented the caller's client in a related matter while the associate worked there.  The associate was not even aware that the caller's client had been a client of his former law firm, had no knowledge of the matter handled by his former law firm nor any personal involvement.  I informed the caller that there was no conflict of interest and no basis to file a motion to disqualfiy the firm.  He responded, "Really?  That can't be right."  I explained that conflicts are imputed under Rule 1.10 to other lawyers associated in a law firm, but the rules are different when lawyer move between firms.

More examples can be cited but the bottom line is that lawyers have to read, understand and know the rules and they cannot "go with their gut."

Lawyers Need to be Aware of Fake Reviews

I did an interview for the ABA Journal that was published in August 2012.  See ABA Journal, August 2012 at pp. 24-25.  The topic of interest was the discovery of several incidents of online reviews of lawyers and law firms purporting to have been written by clients.  Random Google searches of firms revealed "five star" reviews of various law firms created by persons who claimed to be clients of the law firm.  Contacting the reviewers for verification is not possible.  Google has acknowledged that bogus reviews are a problem but Google does not create reviews.  Lawyers who hire marketing firms to boost their image and ratings online must ensure that the consultant is not using improper or deceptive practices, including manufacturing fake reviews about the quality of the lawyer's services.  In the interview, I advise that lawyers who advertise and use the Internet to marker their services have an ethical duty to periodically Google their name and see what's out there.  Lawyers should be monitoring and policing what others say about them.

Bad Ethics Rules that Need to be Incinerated!

This is a 6 min presentation  on YouTube by Will Hornsby on some of the most ridiculous ethics rules adopted in some states:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqo_2JwzgUc&list=PLF236BD0804ED6416&index=5&feature=plcp

Enjoy.

ABA Nixes Proposal to Allow Non-Lawyers to Own Law Firms

ABA COMMISSION ON ETHICS 20/20 WILL NOT PROPOSE CHANGES TO ABA POLICY PROHIBITING NONLAWYER OWNERSHIP OF LAW FIRMS CHICAGO, April 16, 2012-At its April 12-13 meeting in Washington, D.C., the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 decided not to propose changes to ABA policy prohibiting nonlawyer ownership of law firms.


Co-Chairs Jamie S. Gorelick and Michael Traynor said, "Since its creation in 2009, the commission has undertaken a careful study of alternative law practice structures. Based on the commission's extensive outreach, research, consultation, and the response of the profession, there does not appear to be a sufficient basis for recommending a change to ABA policy on nonlawyer ownership of law firms."

By June 2011, the commission had publicly rejected certain forms of nonlawyer ownership that some other countries currently permit, including multidisciplinary practices, publicly traded law firms, and passive, outside nonlawyer investment or ownership in law firms.

After further consideration and study, on Dec. 2, 2011, the commission released for comment a discussion draft describing a limited form of court-regulated, nonlawyer ownership of law firms. It would have allowed nonlawyers, who were employed by a law firm and assisted the firm's lawyers in the provision of legal services, to have a minority financial interest in the firm and share in its profits. The discussion draft reflected an approach that was similar to but more restrictive than the structure permitted by the District of Columbia for more than 20 years.

"The commission considered the pros and cons, including thoughtful comments that the changes recommended in the discussion draft were both too modest and too expansive, and concluded that the case had not been made for proceeding even with a form of nonlawyer ownership that is more limited than the D.C. model," Gorelick and Traynor said.

Although it will not propose any changes to ABA policy on nonlawyer ownership of law firms, the commission will continue to consider how to provide practical guidance about choice of law problems that are arising because some jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia and a growing number of foreign jurisdictions, permit nonlawyer ownership of law firms.

"These are current problems that need pragmatic attention," Gorelick and Traynor said. "The commission previously released draft proposals on these issues, and will decide at its October 2012 meeting whether to submit formal proposals to the ABA House of Delegates for consideration in February 2013. Meanwhile, the commission welcomes additional comments on the previously released drafts."

The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 was created in 2009 and charged with performing a thorough review of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the U.S. system of lawyer regulation in the context of advances in technology and global legal practice developments.

Members of the commission include judges, law professors who specialize in legal ethics, practitioners (including former ABA, state bar and local bar presidents), and liaison members from the ABA Board of Governors, Center for Professional Responsibility, Task Force on International Trade in Legal Services, Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and Young Lawyers Division.

Co-chair Gorelick is a partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in Washington, D.C. Co-chair Traynor, of Berkeley, Calif., is a past president of the American Law Institute and currently chairs the institute's council.

The Nursery Rhyme Lawyer

Have you ever wondered what would happen if Jack and Jill or Humpty Dumpty sued for their personal injuries?  Call the Nursery Rhyme Lawyer!  Click on this link to hear his song:

http://video.thebillablehour.com/video/Throwing-Toasters-performs-Nurs#

Most significant changes in the practice of law

A timely article in this week's issue (9/5/11) of the Virginia Lawyers Weekly (Dolan Publishing Co.), celebrating its 25th "Silver Anniversary" as a paper, covered interviews of prominent lawyers in our state who were asked to identify the most significant changes in the practice of law: Marketing and specialization, commercialization, and a substantial decline in jury trials were the top three.

New Rule 1.18 Adopted by Supreme Court of Virginia

The Virginia State Bar's Standing Committee on Legal Ethics proposed that the Court adopt ABA MR 1.18 and the Court has adopted this rule effective June 21, 2011.  Rule 1.18 addresses the ethical duties owed to a  prospective client with whom a lawyer has communicated but has not agreed to represent that person.  A prospective client is a person with whom the lawyer is willing to discuss the possibility of employment.  The comments to the rule make clear that not all unilateral communications with a lawyer are protected, only those communications had with a reasonable expectation of forming a client-lawyer relationship.  In that case, the communications are protected under the lawyer's duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.6, and the lawyer who has received significantly harmful information from a prosepective client may not represent a client adverse to that prospective client.  However, the imputation of this conflict can be avoided if the tainted lawyer is screened from participating in any matter adverse to the prospective client and timely notice is given.  It is believed that this new rule will help mitigate the practice by some people of "lawyer shopping" solely for the purpose of strategically disqualifying the lawyer or law firm because of an interview or other contact.  At the very least the new rule should help law firms avoid an imputed disqualification when one of its lawyers has some communication with a prospective client.

Casey Anthony . . . Get Over it, people!

The public lynching of Casey Anthony, her lawyer, Jose Baez (a/k/a "sleazeball defense lawyer") and the jury that sat through this trial is despicable and needs to stop.  Guilty as Casey Anthony may appear to the general public, the jury did its job correctly by acquitting her of murder because the government did not have a case.  Her lawyer did what he was supposed to do and so did the jury.  How about complaining about the prosecutor for putting on a case that needed more investigation and work?  The sad part about all of this bloodlust for Casey Anthony in the media is that these same people would want the same criminal justice system to work for them if their life or libery was on the line.  Finding Casey Anthony guilty of first degree murder on the flimsy evidence the prosecution had would be a travesty and miscarriage of justice, even assuming she committed the crime.  The answer is for the police and prosecution to prepare their case before bringing it to trial, not bashing the defense or the jury on the perception that Casey Anthony "got away with murder."  We cannot disregard or begrudge the constitution, burden of proof and procedure safeguards afforded any citizen charged with a crime just because we don't like the result in a highly publicized case.  Let's put things in perspective and get over it, folks.

New Rule Encourages Pro Bono Work By Corporate Counsel

The Supreme Court of Virginia approved April 15, 2011, effectively immediately, a proposed amendment to Supreme Court Rule 1A:5, Corporate Counsel & Corporate Counsel Registrants, which allows Virginia corporate counsel admitted in States other than Virginia to do pro bono work. This proposal came at the recommendation of the Joint Virginia State Bar and Virginia Bar Association Corporate Counsel Pro Bono Task Force (Task Force), with the hope of increasing the number of lawyers eligible to provide pro bono public services while ensuring that such lawyers are subject to adequate professional guidelines regarding competence in the handling of such matters.


The approved changes also revise paragraph (g) of the rule in three respects: (1) removes the requirement for Part I corporate counsel registrants to participate only in pro bono programs operated and controlled by any Virginia licensed Legal Aid Society; (2) removes the requirement that the Part I corporate counsel work under the “direct supervision” of a legal aid lawyer or a pro bono volunteer who is a regular active member of the Virginia State Bar; and (3) removes limitations on the specific services that can be performed by the corporate counsel volunteer. These changes broaden the scope of appropriate pro bono legal services for specific clients over other legal aid services, thereby creating additional opportunities for pro bono services for Part I corporate counsel. Even though the approved changes eliminate the provisions in the Rule pertaining to supervision, Part I corporate counsel are required by Rule 1.1, like all lawyers who practice law in Virginia, to serve their clients competently and have an ethical duty to make sure they received proper and sufficient training to handle a pro bono matter.

New Article Published on Lawyer Websites and Blogs

The April 2011 issue of The Virginia Lawyer has my latest article on lawyer websites and blogs and the ethics issues that arise out of their use.  Check it out!

http://www.vsb.org/docs/valawyermagazine/vl0411-consultus.pdf

New Article Published on Cloud Computing

"Cloud Computing--Silver Lining or Ethical Thunderstorm for Lawyers" is published in The Virginia Lawyer (Feb. 2011)

Check it out!

http://www.vsb.org/docs/valawyermagazine/vl0211_consultus.pdf

Proposed Florida Bar Opinion Requires Lawyers to Scrub Hard Drives

A recent proposed advisory opinion by the Florida Bar warns lawyers of their ethical duty to see that old hard drives are sanitized to protect client information from falling into the hands of unauthorized third parties.  See Proposed Opinion 10-2 (Sept 24, 2010) found at http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/04F704C626B79C2E852577AB006FD349/$FILE/10-02%20PAO.pdf?OpenElement

Hard drives or memory sticks are used in copying and fax machines as well as computers.  Lawyers that lease copiers or dispose of these machines without sanitizing the hard drive leave client information vulneralble to the mischief of third parties that mine and harvest such information to commit identity theft.  The proposed opinion would require lawyers to obtan assurances from third party vendors that the hard drive will be sanitized to protect client information.

It remains to be seen how a lawyer can exercise control over third party vendors and whether lawyers should be disciplined for failing to obtain that assurance from the vendor.  For example, what assurance can a lawyer get when he asks a hotel clerk to make copies of a client's documents?  ABA Model Rule 5.3 was not written to address a lawyer's responsibility for conduct of non-lawyers that are not under the direct supervisory authority of the lawyer.  This is why ethical breaches by persons to whom a task or matter has been outsourced by a lawyer, and the outsourcing lawyer's exposure under Rule 5.1 or 5.3 is a problematic issue.  A lawyer does not exercise supervisory authority over third parties not employed by the lawyer or his/her firm.

The opinion also raises a question whether lawyers should be subject to discipline if a third party finds the lawyer's laptop, flash drive, cell phone or other device containing client information that is not encrypted or password protected.  While it is one thing to advise lawyers on best practices regarding the use of technology, it is an entirely different matter to hold a lawyer subject to discipline for not adopting these best practices.

It will be interesting to see how this opinion reads when it is finally  adopted.

Prosecutors May Advise Police to Communicate with Represented Defendant

Effective November 1, 2010, the Supreme Court of Virginia approved the Virginia State Bar’s Rule 4.2 Task Force’s proposed amendment to Comment [5] of Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct to address the situation in which a defendant who is in custody, formally charged, and represented by counsel waives his rights under Miranda v. Arizona and wants to give a statement to a law enforcement officer without his counsel present.


The question addressed by the task force was: “If the law enforcement officer seeks legal advice from a commonwealth’s attorney regarding whether the officer may obtain a statement from the defendant under these circumstances, may the commonwealth’s attorney advise the police officer without violating Rule 4.2?

Rule 4.2 had previously prohibited a lawyer from communicating with a person the lawyer knew to be represented by counsel unless the counsel for the represented person consented or the communication was authorized by law.

Rule 8.4 (a) states that a lawyer cannot violate a professional rule through the agency or actions of another. A reading of the rule led to the conclusion that the commonwealth’s attorney could not ethically advise law enforcement officers to proceed with the custodial interview without notice to or consent from the accused’s lawyer.

The task force determined that the defendant’s waiver of his right to have his lawyer present when the accused desires to talk to a law enforcement officer presents a constitutional legal issue on which the commonwealth’s attorney should be permitted to give advice without fear of violating the cited rules. The amendment to Rule 4.2, Comment [5] clarifies that the commonwealth’s attorney can advise the law enforcement officer regarding the legality of an interrogation or the legality of other investigative conduct. The amendment to Comment [5] does not, however, authorize the commonwealth’s attorney to script or mastermind the police’s interrogation of the defendant.

California Bar Goes After Prosecutors for Misconduct

The California state bar discipline process, led by recently-appointed Chief Trial Counsel Jim Towery, is investigating 130 prosecutors who had been identified in a report by the Innocence Project and Santa Clara University law professors on instances of wrongful conviction.  It is not known how far these cases will go back, but this is a rather significant development in the field of lawyer regulation.

Access Virginia State Bar's Ethics Hotline By E-Mail

Lawyers may now access the Virginia State Bar's Legal Ethics Hotline via e-mail simply by clicking on a blue button.  Here is a link to that page:  http://www.vsb.org/site/regulation/ethics/

This will help reduce the "phone tag" on the traditional phone service.  To reach the hotline by phone and request legal ethics advice dial 804-775-0564.

Members Can Download Legal Forms at VSB Website

Virginia Bar members may now fill out and download many routine pleadings and forms.  To get to the forms, log in as a VSB member.  Click on the “Forms and Downloads” button which takes the user to a page with a “Supreme Court of Virginia Forms” heading at the bottom.


The Supreme Court website has a link to some of the same forms, but most of the forms on the Supreme Court site are ones that must be signed by a pro se litigant or an attorney.

Prosecutors in Daryl Atkins Case Face Disciplinary Charges

Two lawyers involved with the prosecution of the famous capital murder case against Daryl Atkins face charges of misconduct alleging that they coached a co-defendant witness and withheld exculpatory information from the lawyers defending Atkins.  To read more follow this link--

http://valawyersweekly.com/blog/2010/03/15/york-prosecutors-face-bar-discipline/

Payee Notification Bill Withdrawn

In this session of the General Assembly, the Virginia State Bar asked Senator Norment to put a bill before the legislature that would require insurance companies to notify a claimant or plaintiff that a settlement check has been sent to the claimant's or plaintiff's lawyer.  Insurance companies typically send settlement checks directly to the claimant's lawyer, payable jointly to the client and the lawyer.  This procedure allows the lawyer to protect his or her lien on the settlement proceeds.  Because the insurer typically does not communicate with a represented claimant, including when it sends a settlement check to the claimant's lawyer, a dishonest lawyer can steal the client's portion of the settlement by forging the client's signature and settle the client's claim with the insurance company without the client's knowledge or consent.  Stephen Conrad, a now disbarred lawyer who practiced in Woodbridge, Virginia, is estimated to have stolen millions of dollars from personal injury clients whose cases he settled without their knowledge.  A dishonest lawyer will stall the client by lying about the status of the client's case so the client is deceived into thinking the case is still pending.  The victims of these thefts usually cannot succeed in getting the fraudulent settlements set aside because the insurance company has the right to rely on the apparent authority of the lawyer to settle the client's case.  The client's only recourse then is to make a claim against the client protection fund, but the Fund limits payment to $50,000 for losses incurred on or after July 1, 2000.

Experience has shown that these problems are substantially reduced in states that have adopted payee notification laws like the proposed bill introduced in the Virginia General Assembly this session.  The ABA has a Model Payee notification rule--which is not part of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, that simply requires the insurer, when making payment in excess of a threshold amount (such as more than $5000) in settlement of third party liability claim, to send a written notice to the claimant that a settlement check has been sent to their lawyer.

The Virginia Trial Lawyers Association objected to the bill (SB 511) submitted on behalf of the Virginia State Bar and contacted the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, who in turn requested that the bar withdraw its bill from consideration by the General Assembly this session.  Chief Justice Hassell, in a conference call with VSB Executive Director Karen Gould, and VTLA Executive Director Jack Harris, advised that this decision was made with unanimity among the justices at the Court.  The Chief Justice said he wants to discuss the issue at a meeting with representatives from 17 statewide bar groups that he generally convenes once a year.  HB 511 passed the Senate by a vote of 38 to 2 and crossed over to the House where it was stricken from the docket by the Commerce and Labor Committee on March 2, 2010.  A similar bill, HB 738, was introduced by Del. Albo on behalf of the VTLA but the bill never made it out of the Courts of Justice Committee in the House.

Hopefully, the powers that be will see the wisdom of this measure--to protect clients and third parties from lawyers stealing their funds--and get this law on the books before another Stephen Conrad comes along.  Critics of the bill, particularly personal injury lawyers, voice the concern that the proposed bill would invite insurance company reps to communicate directly with their client and would create mischief.  This concern was easily addressed by language included in HB 738 that stated "No other information is authorized by this section to be communicated orally or in writing to such a claimant by a payer."

Lawyers Getting Stung by Internet Scammers

Scammers continue to target Virginia lawyers with promises of high fees for purported collections actions, followed by bogus cashier’s checks — and the scams are becoming increasingly sophisticated.


The Virginia State Bar warned about the scams in June and July 2009: http://www.vsb.org/site/news/item/e-scam-fraudulent-certified-checks/

A newer scam that nearly claimed a Virginia victim is an e-mail that requests help collecting a judgment from a collaborative law agreement for a divorce. The purported creditor is a wife who recently relocated to Japan, and the purported debtor is the husband. The client creditor may appear to be referred by an out-of-state lawyer. The husband quickly agrees to pay the judgment and sends a cashier’s check. The attorney targeted by the scam deposits the check in his or her escrow account, waits for it to be credited to the account, and then wires the funds minus his fees to the wife in Japan. As the check makes its way through the banking channels, it is found to be fraudulent. The lawyer is left owing his bank or other clients a significant amount of money. To make matters worse, some legal malpractice insurers take the position that client losses caused by these scams are not covered under their policy.

Danger Signs or Red Flags:

• The transaction moves very quickly, and you will be asked by the “client” to wire or expedite disbursement of funds from your trust account.

• A party to the transaction is in a foreign country.

• The deal is too good to be true (you don’t get paid big bucks for doing nothing).

Avoiding the Scam:

• Do not enter into a transaction unless you have verified the parties and the claims. Identify and know the “client” with whom you are dealing.

• If you enter into these transactions, do not disburse any funds in your trust account until you have verified the funds with the issuing bank and the check has finally cleared. It may take weeks for the bank to determine that the check is counterfeit.

• Instruct the debtor to make one check payable directly to the “client” for the exact amount owed and a second check payable to you for your fee. Instruct the debtor to have the checks drawn on a local or national bank with branches in your area. Cash your fee check at the issuing bank.

Reporting the Scam

If you have been scammed, call the VSB Ethics Hotline at (804) 775-0564 and your bank for advice. Lawyers who think they might be the target of a scam can also make a report to the Internet Crime Complaint Center at http://www.ic3.gov.

BLOGGING & SOCIAL NETWORKING FOR LAWYERS: ETHICAL PITFALLS

As social networking websites like Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn become increasingly more popular among lawyers, judges, support staff and clients, lawyers have to be mindful about some ethical concerns that may not be obvious. Some lawyers may say that social networking does not present any novel issues for lawyers to worry about. Lawyers cannot afford to be so cavalier. Experienced lawyers and seasoned judges have suffered professional discipline for the improper use of social networking tools. The informality and speed with which communications are made using social network tools like Twitter and Facebook may contribute to errors and ethical transgressions. Also, lawyers need to appreciate that communications over social networks are public, easily searched and permanently archived.




Confidentiality



Rule 1.6 of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct requires a lawyer to protect and not disclose a client’s confidences and secrets, unless the client consents to the disclosure. Confidences are communications between lawyer and client that are protected under the common law attorney-client privilege. Secrets embrace all other information gained in the course of the lawyer-client relationship that the client wants kept confidential or if disclosed would be detrimental or embarrassing to the client. Unlike Virginia, most states did not keep the “confidences and secrets” formulation when they adopted a rule modeled after ABA Model Rule 1.6. ABA Model Rule 1.6 requires that all information relating to the representation of the client be kept confidential. It is important for Virginia lawyers who are admitted in other jurisdictions to know that other jurisdiction’s rule on confidentiality. Under ABA Model Rule 1.6, even the client’s identity and the fact of representation is confidential, whereas under Virginia’s Rule 1.6, that generally is not the case.



A lawyer who discusses his or her cases on Twitter, Facebook, or a blog runs the risk of violating Rule 1.6, absent client consent. A lawyer could easily breach confidentiality on Twitter simply by tweeting to followers what they are doing at that particular time. A lawyer could try to avoid disclosing specific client information by keeping the message very general and vague but this would not be interesting to read. A lawyer may consider having the client agree up front to permitting the lawyer post information about the client’s matter on a social networking site. However, the lawyer must ensure that any disclosure will not hurt the client’s legal position or embarrass the client. Since there may be quite a lot of information that is unknown at the outset of an engagement, an advanced consent may not be effective because it was not informed. The client may be quite angry with the lawyer for posting information learned after the consent was given. In addition, there is a risk that the posted information may be read by the client’s adversary, opposing counsel, or other third parties. While it may be improper under certain circumstances for lawyers or their agents to go mining for an opposing party’s personal information on a social networking site, some lawyers don’t think, don’t know, or don’t care that obtaining and using your client’s information may be unethical.



The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission has commenced disciplinary action against an experienced assistant public defender who discussed her cases on her blog. Here is what she posted on her blog:



#127409 (the client's jail identification number) This stupid kid is taking the rap for his drug-dealing dirtbag of an older brother because “he's no snitch.” I managed to talk the prosecutor into treatment and deferred prosecution, since we both know the older brother from prior dealings involving drugs and guns. My client is in college. Just goes to show you that higher education does not imply that you have any sense.



In another post, the assistant public defender stated:



“Dennis,” the diabetic whose case I mentioned in Wednesday's post, did drop as ordered, after his court appearance Tuesday and before allegedly going to the ER. Guess what? It was positive for cocaine. He was standing there in court stoned, right in front of the judge, probation officer, prosecutor and defense attorney, swearing he was clean and claiming ignorance as to why his blood sugar wasn't being managed well.



In yet another post, the assistant public defender vividly described her client’s perjury in a criminal case. In addition to the blog entries described above, the lawyer referred to a judge as being “a total asshole,” and in another she referred to a judge as “Judge Clueless.” The Illinois Board has recommended her disbarment.



Criticizing a judge in a blog got lawyer Sean Conway in trouble. In a conditional plea, Conway agreed to a reprimand for calling a judge an “evil, unfair witch” in a blog post. He claimed in a brief submitted to the Florida Supreme Court that his remarks were protected by the First Amendment, but the court disagreed and affirmed the disciplinary agreement.



On Facebook, a user's profile, photographs, and updates are sometimes available to the public at large or more generally to any other member who is authorized by the first user. Facebook’s platform allows users to add such “friends” and to send them messages, as well as leave postings on “friends’” profile pages through what are called “comments” and “wall posts.” Fortunately, privacy and security settings on Facebook allow the user to restrict or limit access the user’s profile to only members, the user’s “friends” or even a select few “friends.” If the user is not careful, information can easily fall into the wrong hands. For example, in People v. Liceaga, a Michigan murder trial, the prosecutor sought to admit photographs found on the defendant's MySpace page as evidence of intent and planning. Specifically, the defendant's profile Web page contained photographs of himself and the gun allegedly used to shoot the victim, and in which he was displaying a gang sign.



In In the matter of K.W., a North Carolina court admitted into evidence an alleged child abuse victim’s MySpace page as impeachment evidence. Specifically, the court held that the victim’s posting of suggestive photographs along with provocative language could be used to impeach inconsistent statements made to the police about her sexual history.



Courts have also permitted information gathered on a person’s social networking site to be used as evidence at the sentencing stage of a criminal proceeding. In United States v. Villanueva, the court found that post-conviction images on the defendant's MySpace page of the defendant holding an AK-47 with a loaded clip taken after the defendant had been convicted of a violent felony could be used as evidence to enhance sentencing.



Trial Publicity



Virginia Rule 3.6 prohibits a prosecutor or a defense lawyer from making public statements about pending criminal cases in which they are involved if the statement will have a substantial likelihood of interfering with the fairness of a trial by jury. Other states’ versions of Rule 3.6 impose the ban in civil cases as well. As jurors use the Internet when they go home for the evening, there is a risk of a mistrial if the lawyers participating in the case are blogging or tweeting about it.



A 40-year-old California attorney has had his law license suspended for 45 days over a trial blog he wrote while serving as a juror. Because of a blog post by Frank Russell Wilson, an appeals court reversed and remanded the felony burglary case, reports the California Bar Journal. As a juror, Wilson was warned by the judge not to discuss the case, orally or in writing. Wilson evidently made a lawyerly distinction concerning blogs: “Nowhere do I recall the jury instructions mandating I can’t post comments in my blog about the trial,” he writes, before posting unflattering descriptions of both the judge and the defendant. He also failed to identify himself as a lawyer to the trial participants, the bar journal notes.



Using Pretext to Obtain a Person’s Information on a Social Networking Web Site



As social-networking websites such as Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter continue to become more popular, criminal and civil attorneys across the nation are beginning to find these websites useful for gathering evidence and personal information relevant to their cases. However, lawyers must be mindful of Virginia Rule 8.4(c) which prohibits deception and misrepresentation and Rule 8.4(a) which states that a lawyer cannot use the agency of another to violate the ethics rules. A recent ethics opinion by the Philadelphia Bar Association holds that a lawyer violates Rule 8.4 by employing a third party to go online and gain access to a person’s information on Facebook by asking to be their “friend.”





Misrepresentation



A lawyer requested a continuance claiming a death in the family, but the Galveston, Texas judge checked her Facebook page and discovered news of a week of drinking and partying. The judge informed the lawyer’s senior partner of her misrepresentation. The judge told the ABA Journal that the lawyer “defriended” her.



Ethical Lapses by Judges

A North Carolina judge has been reprimanded for “friending” a lawyer in a pending case on Facebook, posting and reading messages about the litigation, and accessing the website of the opposing party. See In the Matter of B. Carlton Terry, Jr., North Carolina Judicial Stds, Comm’n, No. 08-234 (April 1, 2009). Both the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Conduct prohibit ex parte communications between lawyers and judges about pending matters, subject to some limited exceptions. Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.5 (e); Canons of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3B(7).

The Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee has issued an opinion holding that it is judicial misconduct for a judge to add as “friends” on Facebook lawyers who may appear before that judge. The Committee 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. See also Va. CJC, Canon 2B.

Lawyer Advertising Rules

Lawyers should review Virginia Rules 7.1 and 7.2 to make sure all statement or claims made via a website, a blog, Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn are in compliance with the advertising rules. Rule 7.1 prohibits a lawyer in his or her public communications from making false or misleading statements about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. Rule 7.2 imposes additional requirements on “lawyer advertising,” including identifying by name and office address the lawyer responsible for the advertisement. Rule 7.2(e). Consider also reading Virginia LEO 1750 (Advertising, Compendium Opinion). Lawyers must ensure the advertising rules are followed if using Internet media to promote their services especially if using celebrity endorsements, client testimonials, specific case results, specialization claims, or comparative statements. Moreover, advertising with electronic media is subject to Rule 7.2(b) which requires a record be maintained of the advertisement for one year from its last appearance date.



For example, LinkedIn has a section on “specialties.” In many jurisdictions, lawyers are either forbidden from holding themselves out as specialists or must meet certain requirements to do so. In some states this means the lawyer must be certified as a specialist under that state’s specialization certification program. Virginia does not have such a program. However, Virginia does not prohibit a lawyer from holding out generally as a specialist or expert in an area or field so long as the claim can be factually substantiated. Virginia’s Rule 7.4 does prohibit a lawyer from saying that he or she is certified as a specialist, unless the communication also has a required disclaimer that the state of Virginia does not have a procedure for approving or certifying specializations.



A lawyer who “tweets” about obtaining a huge verdict in a case will likely violate Rule 7.2’s prohibition against advertising specific case results because the 140 character limitation on tweets makes it impossible to include the required disclaimer. Rule 7.2(a)(3). Rule 7.2(e)’s requirement of responsible attorney identification may also preclude the use of Twitter as an advertising media.



Client recommendations or endorsements must be scrutinized by the lawyer for compliance with the advertising rules. South Carolina Ethics Advisory Opinion 09-10 states that a lawyer is responsible for any recommendations, endorsements or ratings ascribed to that lawyer on a third party website. If the lawyer cannot monitor and remove or edit non-compliant statements, the lawyer must cease participation on that website. Some legal ethics experts believe a lawyer should not be held responsible for an unsolicited endorsement or recommendation.



LinkedIn has a section on recommendations in which the member can ask other members for a recommendation. Some states do not allow client testimonials, so Virginia lawyers admitted and practicing in other states need to be aware of that state’s rule. Even if the state, like Virginia, allows client testimonials, endorsements, or recommendations, the testimonials must be monitored, revised, or removed so as to comply with Rules 7.1 and 7.2. For example, the lawyer cannot permit to remain on his LinkedIn page a client recommendation that says the lawyer is the “best personal injury lawyer in town,” because it is a comparative statement that cannot be factually substantiated.



Is There a Form of “Solicitation” that is Prohibited or Restricted?



Virginia’s Rule 7.3 regulates direct communication with prospective clients and states “[i]n person communication means face-to-face communication and telephonic communication.” Thus, invitations from a lawyer to a prospective client into the lawyer’s LinkedIn or Facebook page would likely not fall within the rule. However, lawyer solicitation rules vary from state to state, so a Virginia lawyer licensed in other jurisdictions should review the ethics rules of that particular state to determine whether these forms of communication are subject to regulation as a form of solicitation.



Creating Unintended Lawyer-Client Relationships



The lawyer must consider whether informational advice on a blog or website creates the impression of giving legal advice that can be relied on by a visitor. Clear disclaimers can be helpful in resolving this problem. The question to ask is, “Does the online resource do anything that would create client expectations?”



Legal information of general application about a particular subject or issue is not “legal advice” and should not create any lawyer-client issues for the blogging or posting lawyer. Appropriate disclaimers will assure this conclusion. However, if a lawyer by online forms, e-mail, chat room, social networking site, etc. elicits specific information about a person’s particular legal problem and provides advice to that person, there is a risk that a lawyer-client relationship will have formed. Virginia LEO 1842 (2008) addresses this issue somewhat in connection with visitors on a law firm’s web page. The Committee believes the lawyer does not owe a duty of confidentiality to a person who unilaterally transmits unsolicited confidential information via e-mail to the firm using the lawyer’s e-mail address posted on the firm’s website. The person is using mere contact information provided by the law firm on its website and does not, in the Committee’s view, have a reasonable expectation that the information contained in the e-mail will be kept confidential. On the other hand, if the law firm’s website invites the visitor to submit information via e-mail to the law firm for evaluation of their claim, there will be a limited lawyer-client relationship for purposes of Rules 1.6, 1.7 and 1.9. The law firm may be disqualified, under these circumstances, if they are also representing a client adverse to the website visitor. The website disclaimer might state, for example, that no attorney-client relationship is being formed when a prospective client submits information, and that the firm has no duty to maintain as confidential any information submitted. The disclaimer should be clearly worded so as to overcome a reasonable belief on the part of the prospective client that the information will be maintained as confidential. In addition, the Committee recommends the use of a “click-through” (or, “click-wrap”) disclaimer, which requires the prospective client to assent to the terms of the disclaimer before being permitted to submit the information.



Law Firm Policies and Supervision of Employees



Lawyers in law firms have an ethical duty to supervise subordinate lawyers and non-lawyer staff to ensure that their conduct complies with applicable rules of conduct, including the ethical duty of confidentiality. See Rules 5.1 and 5.3. To this end, law firms need to have policies in place regarding employees’ use of social networking websites during and after normal business hours.