Legal News

Why You Shouldn?t Take it Hard If a Judge Rejects Your Friend Request

By Ashby Jones

We’re not sure how many judges out there are avid Facebook users. But those that are might want to think twice before hitting the “confirm” button on all those friend requests from lawyers in your districts. At least, we should add, in Florida.

Late last month, the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issued an advisory opinion on the use of social networking sites by Florida judges. (Hat tip: Legal Profession Blog.)

This little rhetorical appears early in the opinion:

Whether a judge may 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.”

ANSWER: No.

Interesting, no? When I first signed up for Facebook, back in the fall of 2007, “friending” someone seemed to equate to a sort of confirmation of a pre-existing friendship. But since then, it’s taken on a different meaning. I’ve friended friends, friends of friends, acquaintances, work colleagues, people who claim to know me, people from my past I barely remember, and people who probably requested my “friendship” completely by mistake or through some sort of elaborate spam ruse that I’m not smart enough to figure out. I routinely “confirm” them all. While I suspect that I’m a bit lazier managing my Facebook page than others, I also suspect there are others in my boat. Lots of others.

In other words, while “friending” connotes a level of intimacy greater than, say, an exchange of business cards, it falls well short of establishing or confirming true friendship.

That’s where I stand on it, at any rate.

But the Florida JEAC doesn’t agree:

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. This is not to say, of course, that simply because a lawyer is listed as a "friend" on a social networking site or because a lawyer is a friend of the judge, as the term friend is used in its traditional sense, means that this lawyer is, in fact, in a special position to influence the judge. The issue, however, is not whether the lawyer actually is in a position to influence the judge, but instead whether the proposed conduct, the identification of the lawyer as a "friend" on the social networking site, conveys the impression that the lawyer is in a position to influence the judge. The Committee concludes that such identification in a public forum of a lawyer who may appear before the judge does convey this impression and therefore is not permitted.

LBers, any thoughts? Are the Florida folks being a little overly cautious here? Or do they have it right?

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on December 09, 2009 (boomark / email).