Careers

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Experience

Innovation

Interactive Maps

Locations

About

Pages

Meet our team of innovators
Ask us how we do it

Professionals

Insights

Services

Thompson Hine LLP, a full-service business law firm with approximately 400 lawyers in 11 offices, was ranked number 1 in the category “Most innovative North American law firms: New working models” by The Financial Times and was 1 of 7 firms shortlisted for The American Lawyer’s inaugural Legal Services Innovation Award. The firm has been recognized by the National Law Journal as a Legal Technology Trailblazer and featured by Bloomberg for its innovative service delivery models, which drive accuracy and predictability. The firm’s commitment to innovation is embodied in Thompson Hine SmartPaTHTM – a smarter way to work – predictable, efficient and aligned with client goals. For more information, please visit ThompsonHine.com and ThompsonHine.com/SmartPaTH.

Home | Thompson Hine LLP

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Dayton

Los Angeles

Minneapolis

New York

Silicon Valley

Washington, D.C.

<img style="max-width: 100%;height: auto;max-width: 100%;height: auto" loading="lazy" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-2356" src="https://www.thelawforlawyerstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/754/2016/02/Dislike-cropped-300x283.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="283">Disclosing client information on Facebook has gotten yet another lawyer in trouble.&nbsp; A Massachusetts attorney was <a href="https://bbopublic.blob.core.windows.net/web/f/pr19-16.pdf">publicly reprimanded</a> earlier this month for posting details of a guardianship case on the social media site, in violation of the Bay State&rsquo;s version of <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/">Model Rule 1.6</a>&nbsp;(&ldquo;Confidentiality of Information&rdquo;).&nbsp; The Board imposed a public reprimand, rejecting an argument that the only people who would have recognized the case from the information posted were the&nbsp;parties themselves.&nbsp; The case highlights the risk of posting even information you have tried to&nbsp;anonymize.
&ldquo;Back in the Boston office ...&rdquo;
After representing his client at a hearing in juvenile court, the lawyer (a member of the bar since&nbsp;1977)&nbsp;posted on his personal Facebook page, which was public and had no privacy setting:
I am back in the Boston office after appearing in Berkshire Juvenile Court in Pittsfield on behalf of a grandmother who was seeking guardianship of her six year old grandson and was opposed by DCF [i.e., Department of Children and Families]&nbsp;yesterday.&nbsp; Next date &mdash; 10/23.
Two people responded to the post.&nbsp; A Massachusetts lawyer&nbsp;who was a&nbsp;FB friend asked, &ldquo;What were the grounds for opposing?&rdquo;&nbsp; The lawyer answered, &ldquo;GM [i.e. grandmother] will&nbsp; not be able to control her daughter, the biological mother, and DCF has concerns.&rdquo;&nbsp; The friend responded (sarcastically), &ldquo;DCF does have a sterling record of controlling children and questionable mothers, after all.&rdquo;&nbsp; The lawyer replied, &ldquo;Indeed.&rdquo;
A second&nbsp;FB friend,&nbsp;this one a non-lawyer, also responded:&nbsp; &ldquo;So&nbsp;what&rsquo;s the preference ... Foster care?&nbsp; What am I missing here?&rdquo;&nbsp; The lawyer answered:
The grandson is in his fourth placement in foster care since his removal from GM&rsquo;s residence in late July. I will discover what DCF is doing or not doing as to why DCF opposes the GM as guardian.&nbsp; More to come.
Within a couple months, the lawyer&rsquo;s client learned from her daughter about the lawyer&rsquo;s&nbsp;FB post.&nbsp; She later&nbsp; complained to him and eventually to disciplinary authorities.
Connecting the dots?
The lower hearing committee recommended dismissing the disciplinary case, concluding that the FB post couldn&rsquo;t reasonably be linked to the client, and therefore there was no confidentiality violation&nbsp;under Rule 1.6.&nbsp; But the Board rejected that conclusion, because the post disclosed sufficient information to make it&nbsp;clear to the client&rsquo;s daughter that the post referred to her mother.&nbsp;That belied the notion that no one could identify the case and learn confidential information from the post.
&ldquo;Even if there were no evidence that a third party actually recognized the client in the post,&rdquo;&nbsp;said the Board,&nbsp;&ldquo;we would still conclude that the respondent had violated Rule 1.6(a).&nbsp; There is no requirement that a third party actually connect the dots.&rdquo;&nbsp; Rather, the Board ruled, it was enough if it were &ldquo;reasonably likely that a third party could do so.&rdquo;
This was no mere hypothetical, or &ldquo;shop talk&rdquo; among lawyers the Board said.&nbsp; The lawyer&rsquo;s FB post did not seek advice from other lawyers, in the Board&rsquo;s view, or have &ldquo;any other purpose that would have served his fiduciary duty to his client.&rdquo;&nbsp; Rather, he violated the duty to &ldquo;jealously guard ... client secrets.&rdquo;
The lawyer in this case had apparently practiced for 42 years without any other disciplinary history.&nbsp; The Board brushed off his lack of previous discipline and said it was&nbsp;entitled to no mitigating weight.&nbsp;&nbsp;Instead, the Board&nbsp;regarded the lawyer&rsquo;s long experience as an aggravating factor, since &ldquo;he should understand the importance of protecting client confidences.&rdquo;
Be careful out there
Do we need to say it again?&nbsp; Don&rsquo;t even get close to talking about the specifics of your clients&rsquo; matters on social media.&nbsp; Even if you try to disguise identities and details, that might not be enough to keep you out of trouble.

core/freeform

Ethics

Legal Ethics, Professional Responsibility and the Business of Law

Facebook posts that revealed client info bring public reprimand for MA lawyer