My reaction to the opinion — that judges ought to avoid entirely engaging in social media communications with anyone who is or may be a lawyer or a litigant in cases before them — is one people close to me would describe as “paranoid.” Perhaps I’m just risk averse. I think, though, that I’m principally concerned with integrity.

The issue is one that pertains to what are known as “ex parte communciations” — communication between a lawyer or a litigant with the judge without the presence or participation of the adversaries to the lawsuit in which the lawyer or litigant is appearing before the judge. Ex parte communications, except under very limited circumstances all of which ensure notification to the adversaries as soon as practicable, are absolutely forbidden. Our legal system is founded on its adversary nature — not in the sense that it requires fighting but, rather, in that it tries to ensure the voices relevant to the dispute all have equal access to the judge. If my adversary communicates with the judge, I have the opportunity to judge whether it’s worthy of a response and how to respond. We don’t leave to the judge to decide whether I should or can respond — the system ensures I make that decision.

The importance of avoiding ex parte communications was brought home to me in law school by the professor who was my supervising attorney in the clinic I was part of. I was representing a child as guardian ad litem in a child abuse and neglect case in family court in Flint, Michigan. The entire scene was grim — it was 1983, and Michigan had started the precipitous economic descent it suffered at the hands of the auto industry. Unemployment in Flint was through the roof (even in 2010 terms). Abuse and neglect claims had increased. That day it was freezing and pouring rain.

After our hearing, my professor/supervisor and I stood sheltered in an entranceway to the courthouse, hoping the rain would abate a bit so we could make it to our car without getting to0 rain-soaked. As we stood there, the door opened and the judge before whom we’d just appeared stepped out, smiled, and started speaking with us, obviously intent on the same endeavor we were — waiting out the rain in the doorway. My professor immediately wished the judge a good day and, grabbing my arm, led us out into the deluge. When we’d made it to the car I asked her what in the world she had been thinking. She responded, “You do not communicate with a judge without the other side present. It’s wrong!”

It makes perfect sense to me. If the other side has an opportunity to communicate with the judge without my knowledge, how am I supposed to judge what I should let the judge know? Unfortunately, some important people seem to have underestimated the fundamental importance of this rule. Justice Scalia seems not to have worried that hunting with Dick Cheney might be deemed a compromise of the integrity of his court judging a case in which Cheney was a party. Justice Thomas’s willingness to speak before and maintain other relationships with conservative groups with a stake in cases before the Supreme Court are notorious.

And now comes the Ohio Supreme Court suggesting that as long as a judge is really careful he can communicate via social networks with people who are litigating cases in his court. I think it stinks. I would tell a judge not to allow access via social networks to litigants or potential litigants. And I’d tell any lawyer to stay away from networking with a judge before whom he will or may appear.

Incidentally, I don’t think the Ohio Supreme Court’s “guidance” really is all that helpful anyway. Essentially, the guidelines leave to the judge the determination of what is and is not appropriate, acknowledging there are no “bright lines” distinguishing between the two:

• To comply with Jud. Cond. Rule 1.2., a judge must maintain dignity in every comment, photograph, and other information shared on the social networking site.
• To comply with Jud. Cond. Rule 2.4(C), a judge must not foster social networking interactions with individuals or organizations if such communications erode confidence in the independence of judicial decision making.
• To comply with Jud. Cond. Rule 2.9 (A), a judge should not make comments on a social networking site about any matters pending before the judge – not to a party, not to a counsel for a party, not to anyone.
• To comply with Jud. Cond. Rule 2.9 (C), a judge should not view a party’s or witnesses’ pages on a social networking site and should not use social networking sites to obtain information regarding the matter before the judge.
• To comply with Jud. Cond. Rule 2.10, a judge should avoid making any comments on a social networking site about a pending or impending matter in any court.
• To comply with Jud. Cond. Rule 2.11 (A)(1), a judge should disqualify himself or herself from a proceeding when the judge’s social networking relationship with a lawyer creates bias or prejudice concerning the lawyer or party. There is no bright-line rule: not all social relationships, online or otherwise, require a judge disqualification.
• To comply with Jud. Cond. Rule 3.10, a judge may not give legal advice to others on a social networking site.

Social Networking by Judges, Board of Governors of Grievances and Discipline, Ohio Op_10-007, 12-3-10

Back in October, I praised the lawyer for the site formerly known as Placebook for not easily being bullied, for stating straight out that Facebook’s cease-and-desist letter insisting that Placebook’s name would cause customer confusion with Facebook’s trademark very was “very predatory and not reasonable.’’ Of course, she also said that every company Facebook had asserted such a trademark infringement claim against “has rolled over and died, because no one has $6.9 billion to fight them.”

Sure enough, the client decided that the expense of fighting Facebook, even on a meritorious claim, wasn’t worth it. As Melissa Bell of the Washington Post reports, Placebook cried uncle and is now calling itself TripTrace. And now Facebook has taken “Teachbook, a teacher’s network, to court, for ‘rid[ing] on the coattails of the fame and enormous goodwill of the Facebook trademark.’”

The parody site Lamebook, however, has taken the fight straight to Facebook:

the parody site, Lamebook, however, a more direct course of action seemed the right tack. “The Austin-based Web site filed a complaint in Texas against Facebook, asserting its right to the name ‘Lamebook.’”

Of course, the over zealous assertion of purported legal rights by wealthy litigants to cow the less wealthy is not the type of behavior limited to copyright. It comes arises in all legal fields. And, unsurprisingly, Facebook apparently is prone to the practice. As Boston.com reports:

Boston-based Where Inc. has developed an application that helps users find places they might like to visit. You can save it in something called a Placebook.

Just one small problem. The owners of Facebook have apparently decided that Placebook is in violation of its intellectual property rights. Facebook argues that companies like Placebook create confusion among consumers, thereby diluting the value of their unique brand. (Hyperlink added.)

It seems to me a bit of a stretch to worry that someone would consider Placebook to be a product of Facebook. And while Facebook is a pretty brilliant name, it’s hardly original — filched as it was, after all, from the colloquial term that Harvard and many other colleges give to the photo directories they distribute to students. (At my undergraduate institution it was known as the “Pigbook.”)

But Facebook doesn’t have to worry too much about the legitimacy of its claim as long as it’s just legitimate enough to pass the giggle test and thereby scare potential defendants into giving up without a fight:

In a cease-and-desist letter to Placebook’s lawyer a couple of weeks ago, Facebook’s lawyer wrote that, in the US alone, it has successfully intervened to prevent the registration of the trademarks Officebook, Flickbook, Geezerbook, Doctorbook, Lawyerbook, and my personal favorite, Redneckbook, which would have been a website for the hunting-and fishing crowd.

Placebook, however, is not so easily bullied. Just as importantly, Placebook has a lawyer who recognizes bullying when she sees it:

“I think Facebook is having an identity crisis and they are acting like predators,’’ said Kimberly B. Herman, an attorney at Sullivan and Worcester who is representing Placebook. “It’s very predatory and not reasonable.’’

In previous cases, Facebook has gotten its way simply by firing off a threatening letter, according to Herman. That’s what happens when a company valued at nearly $7 billion unleashes its legal might against start-ups. “Every entity has rolled over and died, because no one has $6.9 billion to fight them,’’ Herman said. (Hyperlink added.)

The writer of the Boston.com piece agrees with me in thinking that “consumers are smarter than Facebook gives them credit for and are not likely to get Placebook and Facebook confused.” Unfortunately, “a court may have to decide that — if, of course, Placebook doesn’t back down, as others have.” Here’s hoping Placebook has the resources to send Ms. Herman out to fight for them.

Ars Technica brings up another example, this one perhaps disclosing the naivety of a prosecutor:

Rodney Bradford, a 19-year-old Brooklyn resident, was arrested last month for allegedly robbing a man at gunpoint. This, in itself, was not a very newsworthy event—until his defense lawyer discovered that Bradford had made an update to his Facebook profile at the time of the robbery. Bradford had insisted that he was at his father’s Harlem apartment at the time, and that the update was made from there. When the district attorney verified the claims with Bradford’s father and stepmother and the IP information with Facebook, the charges against Bradford were dropped.

But, of course, “it’s obvious to everyone . . . that the Facebook posting could have been made by someone else, and there would be no way to truly verify who was sitting in front of the computer at the time.” As John Jay College of Criminal Justice law instructor Joseph Pollini points out, it might not be sufficient for the prosecutor to shrug off the possibility simply because the alibi is a teenager’s — teenagers likely know better than anyone how to construct such alibis (and that older people often fail to see through them):

Some of the brightest people on the Internet are teenagers. They know the Internet better than a lot of people. Why? Because they use it all the time.

One problem with this theory is that so few of our contractual relationships are based on anything resembling conscious agreement. When is the last time you read a rental car agreement? The agreement governing use of your credit card? (Well, we might all be doing that more these days.) The terms of service governing your Facebook account?

The vast majority of us never read the terms of service governing our use of commercial web sites. Yet there is little question we are bound to them and that we entrust them with our creative work and our information we want to keep private. More surprisingly, perhaps, when we agree to these terms of service we almost always agree that the service provider can change the terms unilaterally. In other words, we are agreeing that our relationship with the web site will be whatever the web site decides that relationship will be.

As Plagiarism Today explains:

[I]t is standard practice for many sites to silently change their terms of service as the terms itself allow them to do. Users are often unaware of potentially worrisome changes until after a problem has arisen, when it is often too late to do anything about them.

But now the Electronic Frontier Foundation has created “‘TOSBack‘”: a ‘terms of service’” tracker for Facebook, Google, eBay, and other major websites”:

At www.TOSBack.org, you can see a real-time feed of changes and updates to more than three dozen polices from the Internet’s most popular online services. Clicking on an update brings you to a side-by-side before-and-after comparison, highlighting what has been removed from the policy and what has been added. . . .

“Some changes to terms of service are good for consumers, and some are bad,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Fred von Lohmann. “But Internet users are increasingly trusting websites with everything from their photos to their ‘friends lists’ to their calendar — and sometimes even their medical information. TOSBack will help consumers flag changes in the websites they use every day and trust with their personal information.”