Judiciary
Facebooking Judge Catches Lawyer in Lie, Sees Ethical Breaches #ABAChicago
Posted Jul 31, 2009 2:16 PM CST
By Molly McDonough
Galveston, Texas-area lawyers on Facebook may want to double-check their friends list, especially if they’re about to appear before Judge Susan Criss.
That’s because Criss, a state court judge who is learning to adapt to social media as a way to connect with long-lost friends and is leveraging Facebook as a judicial campaign tool, has also learned a few things she didn’t expect.
Biggest surprise: Even lawyers don’t fully grasp how public social media is, even when privacy controls are in place.
“Anyone can cut and paste,” said Criss, who was part of a Friday ABA Annual Meeting program “Courts and Media in the 21st Century: Twitterers, Bloggers, the New Media, the Old Media, and What's a Judge to Do?” sponsored by the ABA’s Judicial Division.
Criss recalled one time that a lawyer asked for a continuance because of the death of her father. The lawyer had earlier posted a string of status updates on Facebook, detailing her week of drinking, going out and partying. But in court, in front of Criss, she told a completely different story.
Then there was the lawyer who complained about having to handle a motion in Criss’s court. Criss playfully zinged her, too—on Facebook, of course.
Criss has seen lawyers on the verge of crossing, if not entirely crossing, ethical lines when they complain about clients and opposing counsel. And she admonished one family member who jeopardized her own tort case by bragging online about how much money she would get from a lawsuit.
The judge's near-breathless accounts of questionable online activity by members of the bench and bar had many in the audience wondering whether Facebook, Twitter and their ilk are worth the headache.
To Criss, there's no going back. With self-imposed ground rules—no politics, no blogging about cases—she's steaming right ahead.
Indeed, she's among a growing number of lawyers and judges who have begun using Facebook for personal, professional and public interest reasons.
JD Supra this week started an attempt to track lawyers using Facebook, much in the same way it is tracking lawyers on Twitter.
Judges questioned Criss for more details about her ground rules. And they asked whether the ABA should be exploring model rules relating to Twitter and Facebook.
Criss said she’s the first to admit these social networks are new to her, but her ground rules are simple. She follows her ethical canons and is careful about what she says and who she friends. Yes to all lawyers—to avoid an appearance that she favors one side over another. Friending the general public is trickier. So far, she's been more selective.
As for whether the ABA needs to address social media in its Model Rules, she and other panelists said no. “The rules are pretty good,” Criss said. That’s not to say that the ABA shouldn’t explore new media and its impact on lawyers, judges and the law.
“The medium is always going to change,” she said. “We need to always adapt.”
More on the Annual Meeting '09 here:
Why is #ABAChicago in our Annual Meeting headlines? Check out our hashtags post: "ABA Annual Meeting 2009 on Twitter"
ABA Journal's Annual Meeting coverage at this link.
Flickr Slideshow: ABA Journal snapshots from Annual Meeting.
Interactive updates on the Annual Meeting from ABA Media Relations at ABANow.org.

Comments
Katherine Johnson
Aug 1, 2009 1:03 PM CST
What would the rule be if a judge to a case was to find out that a crime was committed by someone online who was a defendant in thier court, would they be able to bring that as evidence or would the judge have to disqualify themselves.
Katherine
http://onlineattorneyjourney.blogspot.com/
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Aug 1, 2009 8:06 PM CST
Should it not be the same as the judge learning, via any other information source, that a defendant had uncharged conduct that is not in the evidence before them?
Flag this comment
fed up
Aug 4, 2009 8:01 AM CST
Judge Criss has proven what many nonlawyers already know - lawyers are liars, like rain is wet, and the sun is hot. (all are refutable presumptions).
Keep up the good work Judge Criss.
Truth-challenged lawyers have become such a problem that I record all phone calls on my business extension telephone with a DynaMetric call saver program.
Technology has found a worthy application in the pursuit of truth and justice, or as Marge Simpson pointed out, as long as everyone is videotaping everyone else, justice will be done.
Flag this comment
RC
Aug 7, 2009 6:24 AM CST
fed up, lawyers are people first, then lawyers. Being a lawyer does not make you a liar. Being human does. I know MANY non-lawyer liars as well. Your statement is akin to me saying that all business people are underhanded crooks. I mean, don’t we all know that?
Flag this comment
cheryl
Aug 7, 2009 6:44 AM CST
People are liars - not professions
Flag this comment
Judge Frank
Aug 7, 2009 7:06 AM CST
As a state court judge, I now incorporate facebook and other web based networking sites in our monitoring of defendants on probation. The information has greatly assisted our court’s probation department in tailoring programs for defendants. And, yes, it has resulted in a few probation violations.
Flag this comment
greg
Aug 7, 2009 7:16 AM CST
@#3 - “I record all phone calls on my business extension….”
Really? And you inform all your callers their calls may be recorded, right? Because most states have laws prohibiting the recording of a phone call without the other party’s permission. So even if you get something juicy, unless you’ve gotten their permission to record, you won’t be able to use it in court.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Aug 7, 2009 7:27 AM CST
Probably the greater number of states allow recording if either party to the call consents. The terms and conditions set by telephone company tariffs tend to be more restrictive, requiring notice to all parties. However, even where a state law or tariff is violated, it does not necessarily follow that the recording will not be admissible in evidence. Particularly, as impeachment/rebuttal, if one of the parties misstates what was said.
Flag this comment
Adamius
Aug 7, 2009 12:59 PM CST
Clearly, lawyers who lie to get continuances deserve whatever trouble they get. But this judge acts like everything she does is ok, when some of it is questionable. “Zinging” the lawyer who had to argue a motion before her? That is arguably discussing an aspect of a case ex parte, which is clearly wrong. Even if it’s borderline, don’t judges have an additional ethical constraint above and beyond that of lawyers to avoid “even the appearance of impropriety”? In other words, lawyers are allowed to vent their spleen about work as long as they’re not divulging protected information, but judges responding to it, when the case is perhaps still live and the other party to the case is welcome to “friend in” and see it but hasn’t done so yet…that’s getting into murkier waters. I don’t like how this article spins her up as a sassy judge who’s hip to technology, when her desire to show she’s hip to technology to everybody seems more important to her than maintaining her appearance of impropriety. It doesn’t change things much that the “zinged” attorney had to have already friended the judge and knew she could see what she wrote…it just means they both knowingly had an ex parte communication. Maybe it would have helped if they had told us what the “zing” was, so we could assess its propriety a little better.
Flag this comment
ppp
Aug 7, 2009 4:54 PM CST
In my opinion, Judges and Facebook or any social networking site should not mix period! It gives the appearance if anything of ex parte communications.
In my opinion, lawyers and Facebook/social networking sites are tricky ground as well.
I’m a lawyer and refuse to do social networking of any kind. However, lawyers, are going to do it because lawyers, in general, love to talk about themselves and what they are doing even if it is most likely gawd awful boring.
Still it amazes me that for a profession that knows anything in writing can be used against you, it surprises me how many lawyers still use social networking sites. Also, many employers, prosecutors offices, and client’s do background checks on people and one of the first places they go is these social networking site.
It must be lawyers narcissitic tendancies override their common sense and they continue to post away about their drunk fests, etc. etc. etc.
People in this profession can be very strange and stuipd sometimes or must enjoy digging their own grave.
Flag this comment
mythago
Aug 7, 2009 6:01 PM CST
greg @7, darn it, why did you have to tell him? You just deprived some lawyer of the joy of being on the other side of fed up when he whips out his illegal recordings as “proof”.
Flag this comment
Anonymous
Aug 7, 2009 11:30 PM CST
California, my state, is one where you need someone’s permission to record the conversation, unless a special exception applies. Recording all calls would be a tort in California.
What about the states where the rest of y’all live and work?
Flag this comment
Kalifornia Arnold
Aug 8, 2009 10:37 AM CST
Some attorneys will do anything to win a case—even tell the truth
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.