On December 3, 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline issued an advisory opinion saying that Ohio Judges can have facebook friends and twitter followers that are also attorneys appearing before them in Court. The Supreme Court’s website issued this release:
In one of the most comprehensive and detailed examinations in the nation, the Supreme Court of Ohio’s disciplinary board has issued an advisory opinion examining the ethical implications of judges using social media sites like Facebook and Twitter.
The opinion from the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline advises judges that social media use is permitted but must be done with caution, and it offers wide ranging, specific guidance to judges on how to navigate the new waters of social media without violating judicial canons that require judges to avoid even the appearance of bias or impropriety.
“This is a topic of great interest to the legal community because, like the rest of the nation, more judges are experimenting with social media in both their personal and professional lives,” said Jon Marshall, the board’s secretary. “For those judges who choose to use this technology, we hope this opinion gives them practical guidance on how to do so and maintain their obligations under the Code of Judicial Conduct.”
A recent national study found that 40 percent of judges report using social media profile sites like Facebook and LinkedIn, a proportion roughly equal to that in the general U.S. adult population. Smaller numbers reported using microblogging sites like Twitter and other less popular social media, but the numbers are expected to grow.
Opinion 2010-7 finds that a judge may be a “friend” on a social networking site with a lawyer who appears as counsel in a case before the judge, but cautions: “As with any other action a judge takes, a judge’s participation on a social networking site must be done carefully in order to comply with the ethical rules in the Code of Judicial Conduct.”
Some very logical restrictions include that (1) a judge may not give anyone legal advice through social media sites, (2) judges may not comment on matters pending before the judge, and (3) judges cannot communicate with an attorney appearing before the judge about the matter. The advisory opinion goes on to say that a judge should disqualify herself from a proceeding if her social media relationship with a lawyer on that case creates bias or prejudice. All very fair rules and it demonstrates the pervasive qualities of social media and that, like it or not, it is here to stay.
You can find the entire advisory opinion here.