California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Committee – Opinion 2010-66
Topic: Online Social Networking (of Judges)
Conclusion of the Committee:
“To set out a per se rule barring all interactions with attorneys who may appear before the judge would ignore the realities of an increasingly popular and ubiquitous form of social interaction which is used in a wide variety of contexts. It is the nature of the interaction that should govern the analysis, not the medium in which it takes place. Although the committee has concluded it is permissible for a judge to be a member of an online social networking site and that under some limited circumstances it is permissible to interact with attorneys who may appear before the judge on an online social networking site, it is impermissible for judges to interact with attorneys who have cases pending before the judge, and judges who choose to participate in online social networks should be very cautious. A judge should not participate in an online social networking site without being familiar with that site’s privacy settings and how to modify them. Also, a judge who chooses to participate must be aware of the affirmative obligations the Code places on the judge to monitor the site and whether it violates any of the many ethical rules which could apply.
All the concerns involved in participating in the online social network generally are magnified when it includes attorneys who may appear before the judge. Moreover, even where disqualification is not required a judge must disclose the online relationship and it could raise questions in the minds of the litigants that would have never otherwise arisen. Judges should also bear in mind that determining which attorneys may appear before them can be greatly complicated whenever reassignment of the judge is possible. Although not strictly an ethical concern, judges who choose to participate should be mindful of the significant security concerns that such participation entails. By their very nature social networking sites are the antithesis of maintaining privacy. It is frightening how much someone can learn about another person from a few Internet searches. The judge’s site may be set with the most restrictive privacy settings, but his/her friends’ sites might not. Data imbedded in photos posted on the Internet may be accessible to others. Used in connection with cellular phones, some sites let other participants know a participant’s physical location at any given time.“
Rules:
California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 2A; 2B(1); 2B (2); 3B(7); 3B(9); 3E(1); 3E(2); 4A; 5A; 5D;
Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. Section 170.1(a)
The full text is available at http://www.caljudges.org…