Judges and social networking connections : Form over substance?

Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter may be a great way to connect with friends, family, and business associates. But according to the powers that be it’s not quite so easy to have ‘friends’ on social media when you’re a judge.

The Memphis Appeals’ (@memphisnews) Courts reporter, Lawrence Buser, had a piece last week addressing recent cases and issues about judges and social media.

Last year a judge in Philadelphia was questioned after prosecutors discovered he was Facebook friends with a drunken-driving defendant who got key parts of his case thrown out by the judge. In North Carolina, a judge was reprimanded after he became friends on Facebook with an attorney in a divorce case in his court and began trading posts with the attorney about details of the case, such as whether one party had an affair. The lawyer’s posts included: “I have a wise judge.”

A number of states have also addressed this question and concluded that judges may utilize social networking sites, but do so with caution. The Judicial Ethics Committee of Tennessee recently decided that judges may use social media, but “must decide whether the benefit and utility of participating in social media justify the attendant risks.”

The Tennessee committee struggled with whether stricter regulations were in order.

I think it’s coming as soon as a savvy lawyer or party who wants a particular judge off a case finds out the judge is a media user,” says Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Alan Glenn of Memphis, author of the opinion adopted by the seven-judge committee. “The most immediate impact will be on new judges and the extent they may have to ‘unfriend’ lawyer friends or parties who may also appear in their courts.

It may seem notable for a lawyer to have a number of judges as “friends” on Facebook and other social networks. A judge though is going to have consider whether to connect with lawyers, at all, based on how authorities today are looking at the ethical implications.

Some states like Florida forbid judges from “friending” lawyers who may appear in their courtroom. Even if such online friends aren’t necessarily the same as real friends, the judicial ethicists note that the public may make no such distinction. A California ethics committee notes the more often a “friend” lawyer appears in the judge’s courtroom, “the greater the likelihood of the appearance of favoritism.

No question we are going to see lawyers challenge judges and see judges recuse themselves based on social media connections. But overtime, lawyers, judges, and the judicial governing bodies will see social media and social networks for what they are.

Some day lawyers and judges will have even been part of social networks for a decade or two – they’re in high school, college, and law school right now.

Internet social networks are part of everyday life where we connect and engage – no different than churches, country clubs, civic boards, and receptions.Lawyers and judges have engaged in each of these settings for a hundred years without judges needing to being ultra sensitive to being challenged as a result.

Sure, the impartiality of a judge is critical. So is a judge’s or lawyer’s obligation to raise concerns about impartiality. But taking form over substance by deciding ‘friendship’ on the basis of a Internet social connection alone may be going to far.