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-3605" src="https://www.thelawforlawyerstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/754/2017/10/Facebook-300x300.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="300">The Third District Florida court of appeals got&nbsp;some <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article168865087.html">press</a> this summer when it affirmed an order refusing&nbsp;<a href="http://filehost.thompsonhine.com/uploads/3d17-1421.opinion_5fd9.pdf">to disqualify a judge</a> who was Facebook friends with&nbsp;one of the&nbsp;lawyers in a case before her.&nbsp; The court wrote that &ldquo;a &lsquo;friend&rsquo; on a social networking website is not necessarily a friend in the traditional sense of the word,&rdquo; and therefore being &ldquo;friends&rdquo; was not disqualifying, &ldquo;without more&rdquo;&nbsp; &mdash; namely a well-grounded fear of partiality.
Now, the law firm on the losing end of that case <a href="http://filehost.thompsonhine.com/uploads/2017-1848_notice_82684_e81d_4662.pdf">has asked</a> the Florida Supreme Court to accept an&nbsp;appeal, citing a split on the issue among&nbsp;Florida state appellate courts.
Cases and ethics opinions &mdash; some not very friendly
Some of the cases and ethics opinions on Facebook friendships between judges and lawyers have been friendly to the concept, in a qualified way&nbsp;&mdash; that is, when&nbsp;there is no other factor that would suggest impropriety or&nbsp;possible lack of impartiality on the part of the judge.
For instance, the professional conduct board in my&nbsp;home state of Ohio advised in a <a href="https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op_10-007.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2010 opinion</a>&nbsp;that nothing in the state&rsquo;s judicial code bars&nbsp;a judge from being friends &ndash; online or offline &ndash; with lawyers, even those who appear before the judge.&nbsp; However, the board said, a judge should disqualify himself or herself&nbsp;when the judge&rsquo;s social networking relationship with a lawyer creates bias or prejudice concerning the lawyer for a party.&nbsp; <a href="https://www.nycourts.gov/ip/judicialethics/opinions/13-39.htm">New York</a>&nbsp;has a similar judicial ethics opinion.
Somewhat similarly, in <a href="http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=50e00c99-162f-444a-9450-01e8ac61bddb&amp;MediaID=7e2ca038-57af-470f-b24c-1e90bc619301&amp;coa=coa05&amp;DT=Opinion">Youkers v. Texas</a>, the state criminal appeals court ruled in 2013 that a Facebook friendship between the victim&rsquo;s father and the presiding trial judge was insufficient to show bias as a basis for recusal.
But ethics opinions in some other jurisdictions are more restrictive, and bar a judge from being Facebook friends with lawyers who are currently appearing before them&nbsp;(<a href="http://www.caljudges.org/docs/Ethics%20Opinions/Op%2066%20Final.pdf">California</a>)&nbsp;or even may appear before them&nbsp;(<a href="http://www.mass.gov/courts/case-legal-res/ethics-opinions/judicial-ethics-opinions/cje-opin-2011-6.html">Massachusetts</a>).
Florida split
In Florida, the lower courts of appeal have split.&nbsp; The Third District court of appeals, located in Miami, issued the ruling that is the subject of the state supreme court petition.&nbsp; In its opinion, it acknowledged that its ruling, declining to&nbsp;disqualify&nbsp;on the basis of a Facebook friendship between the judge and the lawyer for one of the parties, was at odds with a 2012 decision of the Fourth District.&nbsp; The court <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1611345.html">there</a> ruled that Facebook friendships between judges and lawyers violated the canons of judicial ethics and created the appearance of impropriety.
The Third District&rsquo;s opinion agreed with a 2014 <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1655565.html">decision</a> of the Fifth District, which noted (in dicta)&nbsp;that without more, being Facebook friends &ldquo;does not necessarily signify the existence of a close relationship.&rdquo;&nbsp; (The Fifth District case involved a party, not a lawyer, and affirmed disqualification of the judge where he tried to initiate a FB friendship while the domestic relations case was ongoing).
&nbsp;True friends
According to the Hebrew Bible, King Solomon&nbsp;said, &ldquo;Love a friend&nbsp;at all times.&rdquo;&nbsp;(Pr. 17:17.)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;That may or may not be&nbsp;good advice when it comes to&nbsp;judges and their Facebook friends.&nbsp; In any event, this is an area where continuing ethics developments bear watching, including in the Sunshine State.

core/freeform

Ethics

Legal Ethics, Professional Responsibility and the Business of Law

Let’s be friends?  FL supreme court asked to decide whether lawyers and judges can be FB pals