Best of Facebook, Legal Ethics on Twitter

Best of:

• 

  retweet | reply Leoramaccabee Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:34 pm

  @bowtielaw I feel that googling is somehow different - I'm anonymous on google. On FB I'm me, and lying about my info seems misleading

• 

  retweet | reply bowtielaw Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:32 pm

  @Leoramaccabee I think the issue also splits hairs. There is nothing wrong with "Googling" someone for public info. Different to

• 

  retweet | reply Leoramaccabee Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:31 pm

  Agreed. Thanks to all who chimed in tonight. I'll post our summary on @Lawyerist this wk RT @kpob1: @BarrettDavid @Leoramaccabee "Good

• 

  retweet | reply kpob1 Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:29 pm

  @BarrettDavid @Leoramaccabee "Good Talk"

• 

  retweet | reply Leoramaccabee Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:26 pm

  @bowtielaw Agreed! So many issues here to develop. ABA is having a CLE next week on ethics and marketing w/social media, but this is diff.

• 

  retweet | reply Leoramaccabee Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:24 pm

  @Ethics_Maven Right. The issue here is not friending, but a lawyer changing his info (location on FB) in order to spy on party/witness.

• 

  retweet | reply bowtielaw Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:24 pm

  @Leoramaccabee The information would have to be public. No one can "Friend" a represented party.

• 

  retweet | reply Ethics_Maven Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:24 pm

  @Leoramaccabee Then sounds more like the kind of spying a PI typically does. But wise to 1st have all facts reviewed by another atty.

• 

  retweet | reply bowtielaw Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:23 pm

  @Leoramaccabee I think you have a great topic for a webinar or article with an ethics lawyer, a PI and Web 2.0 lawyer

• 

  retweet | reply kpob1 Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

  @Leoramaccabee @BarrettDavid - what if your client does it and gives you the info without your request for the info?

• 

  retweet | reply Leoramaccabee Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

  @bowtielaw Agreed. But I think the problem with this tactic, and why it's deceptive is not the contacting, but the misleading/misrep issue.

• 

  retweet | reply Ethics_Maven Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

  @Leoramaccabee It was a PI or an employee who was going to “friend” someone in the Philly bar opinion. Yes, 5.3 can apply to PIs.

• 

  retweet | reply kpob1 Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

  @BarrettDavid @leoramaccabee (i agree after reading 5.3 suggested by @BarrettDavid)

• 

  retweet | reply bowtielaw Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:21 pm

  @Leoramaccabee I think the issue is communication. You cannot contact a represented party, but watching and documenting is what PI's do.

• 

  retweet | reply kpob1 Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:19 pm

  RT @BarrettDavid: @kpob1 @Leoramaccabee Can lawyers outsource deceptive tactics to PI's - um no. - i agree.

• 

  retweet | reply Leoramaccabee Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

  @BarrettDavid: @kpob1 Isn't it misrep if PI changes ntwk for investigatory purposes only? How is that ok?

• 

  retweet | reply kpob1 Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

  @Leoramaccabee @barrettdavid believe 5.3 applies to "dicks" "with respect to non-lawyer employed or retained by or associated

• 

  retweet | reply Leoramaccabee Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:12 pm

  RT @kpob1: @Leoramaccabee @BarrettDavid Does 5.3 apply to Private Investigators? I don't know. Can someone help w/that?

• 

  retweet | reply kpob1 Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

  @Leoramaccabee 5.3c1 lawyer resp. for conduct if he orders or with knowledge of specific conduct ratifies the conduct that would break RPC

• 

  retweet | reply bowtielaw Jul 7, 2009 @ 5:09 pm

  @Leoramaccabee Someone needs to authenticate the FB page, explain how they found it and whether they took screen shots or used HT Tracker.

Community write-ins:

Write a new tweet for this list! If Leoramaccabee likes it, it could get picked for the best-of list above.

• 

  retweet | reply PIbuzz Jul 9, 2009 @ 12:37 am

  Switching networks=passive observation, not contact. Deceiving the witness=nono. A lie to get in the bldg=ok http://twttrlist.com/125b