• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Tweeting While You Work: Social Media and Ethics for Employment Lawyers
 

Tweeting While You Work: Social Media and Ethics for Employment Lawyers

on

  • 126 views

Slides from a CLE to employment lawyers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, regarding the rise of social media, social media as a tool in discovery and litigation, and ethics issues confronted by lawyers, ...

Slides from a CLE to employment lawyers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, regarding the rise of social media, social media as a tool in discovery and litigation, and ethics issues confronted by lawyers, employers and employees involving Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Vine, and so on

Statistics

Views

Total Views
126
Views on SlideShare
125
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • November 2013 - #1 activity online is social media. Surpassing pornography, which has been #1 since birth of the world wide web.
  • Twitter, 140 characters, can insert photo or link.Similar to FB except that you can follow someone without asking them. You just click “follow” next to their name and their tweets are now viewable in your feed. However, Twitter does generate an email saying “Lauren Godshall is now following you.” So people are aware of who is following them and can block or delete followers after the fact, but the followers can follow with a unilateral act.
  • 6 second video clips, #1 apple store free app April 2013, also available for android and blackberry. Generally operates in a similar way to Twitter and is in fact owned by Twitter. The way I first fond out about Vine was on a blog post that showed employees either flipping through confidential business documents or smoking pot while on the job - people have been using these media to complain about their job or admit to things that could get them fired, almost from the inception of each medium.
  • And as quickly as we unleashed the power to communicate on a global scale to everyone, people’s ability to put their foot in their mouth was also unleashed. Almost every day you hear an “apologizes for an offensive tweet” or “offensive facebook post” newstory. Here, I just did a Google search when I was making these slides and I got over 11 million results. This is the central conflict social media: sharing versus oversharing; the perception of anonymity and unaccountability and the reality that in fact you are not anonymous on the internet, and what you put on the internet isn’t something that disappears, it is written in stone.
  • Law firms and lawyers have been slower to adopt, embrace, and understand social media but even our conservation profession has bowed to the inevitability of social media.INTRODUCE the 2013 Am Law Tech Survey
  • And there’s a reason for this. #1, it’s a marketing and networking tool. And, #2– it’s a massive information source. This is my extremely artistic picture of the social media mine. And this mine includes information that you might want to use as evidence in your case.
  • Use it to your advantage in discovery:See what is publicly available on major social networking sites. Numerous jurisdiction have held that a lawyer representing a client in pending litigation may access the public pages of another party’s social networking website – such as Facebook – for the purposes of obtaining possible impeachment material for use in the litigation. This is considered public information unless the user has specifically enabled privacy settings.For example, the White Tail Oilfield Services Ruling – this was an injured maritime subcontractor case. Magistrate Roby ordered the plaintiff first to provide defendants with his facebook log in information, including his password. White Tail complained that this wasn’t enough because they suspected he had already deleted some relevant information. Well, there’s a way to check that: you can, on Facebook, download your entire account, which includes everything ever posted, including deleted items. So Magistrate Roby ordered plaintiff to do that – and he said he couldn’t because he didn’t know how. So in this order, Magistrate Judge Roby said, fine White Tail has the password information, White Tail will log on and get this information downloaded.So courts order this type of disclosure and they are getting creative about it. And a lot of those examples are coming from employment law. One early example is EEOC v. Simply Storage, 270 FRD 430 (S.D. Ind. 2010). Employment discrimination plaintiffs alleged severe emotional distress. The court permitted discovery of social media communications even though those communications did not reference the events described in plaintiffs’ complaint, because they would still reflect the emotional state of the plaintiffs.And in EEPC v. Honeybaked Ham, out of Colorado (2012 WL 5430974), this was an employment class action. The Court appointed a special master and ordered class members to give him access to their text messages and their social media pages.: Many of the class members have utilized electronic media to communicate – with one another or with the respective insider groups – information about their employment with or separation from defendant Honeybaked Ham, this lawsuit, their then-contemporaneous emotional state, and other topics and content that defendant contends may be admissible in this action. As a general matter, I view this content logically as though each class member had a file folder titled “Everything About Me.” which they have voluntarily shared with others. If there are documents in this folder that contain information that is relevant or may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relating to this lawsuit, the presumption is that it should be produced. The fact that it exists in cyberspace on an electronic device is a logistical and, perhaps, financial problem, but not a circumstance that removes the information for accessibility by a party opponent in litigation.
  • BUT while there is a growing number of cases fashioningorderes like this, there are also many opinions denying requests for social media. The rules of relevance still apply to social media evidence just like with all other evidence.The Stored Communications Act prohibits third-party internet service providers from divulging the contents of electronic communications carried, stored or maintained by the service. Several jurisdictions have held that this means that “private” settings on a facebook page are not subject to a subpoena ducestecum and do not have to be divulged in litigation. So going to Facebook itself is unlikely to succeed. Moreover, Facebook charges mandatory, non-refundable processing fees, fees for declarations, and fees for just about anything relating to responding to subpoena requests. And this still does not resolve the issue of authentication. Simply because Facebook produces it, you have not authenticated the item as a post actually made by the opposing party. However, you can instead go to the user and try to get the information that way. Remember, there could be relevant information on the site. And a refusal to produce could be grounds for sanctions. For instance, Judeh v. LSU, we’ll go into this again later, but this was a Judge Vance opinion out of the Eastern District involving a school of public health intern who was fired for making a threat against his supervisor on his facebook page. It was a publicly viewable page, it was seen, and it was used as grounds to terminate him. There wasn’t a problem with access or authenticity here because the fired intern admitted that he made the threat, but argued that he was clearly kidding. In any event, facebook post as a basis to fire, ok and not attacked in subsequent wrongful termination litigation.
  • And here are some examples of moments when the value of social media as a data mine about specific people, employees or potential employees, became very clear. For example, this is called the Cisco Fatty tweet. You can search for it on the internet as “Cisco Fatty” because it became quite infamous for awhile. The background is that a young man in the Bay Area was offered a job, then immediately sent out this tweet.
  • And immediately got a response from a high level Cisco person, who then forwarded this tweet to the Cisco hiring manager and prevented this young man from getting a job!
  • And when I went to the person’s twitter feed, I found this: a locked-down twitter feed. This is a level of privacy protection you can do – very few people do it, but you can lock down your twitter feed so that only your approved followers can see it – which makes it a lot more like Facebook than twitter. Also, what I really found interesting was that this person is now infamous for mis-using twitter – but hasn’t stopped using twitter. This is still an active account. People do not want to stay off of social media.
  • This is a professor at University of New Mexico who, while visiting at NYU, sent out this tweet mocking obsese PhD applicants. And it spread around like wildfire and ended up getting back to his employer. He was formally censured by the university and can no longer have any part in the application process, since he has been public about his basis against certain types of applicants.Miller, a tenured faculty member at UNM, must apologize to his colleagues in the university's psychology department, the university said, and will have his work monitored by department chair Jane Ellen Smith for an unspecified amount of time.
  • And here’s another one that cost someone his job – back in 2011, there were those pro-union protests at the Wisconsin capital. An Indiana deputy attorney general responded to a tweet from Mother Jones by suggesting that the riot police “use live ammunition” against the protestors.He was fired. He argued that it was clearly a joke, but regardless, he was out of a job.
  • So when I was putting together these slides, I just did a quick search on twitter for the hashtags #hate my job and #hate my boss. EXPLAIN HASHTAGS. And here’s just a few I found where these folks are identifying themselves by name and complaining about their jobs. Mason Alexus, for example, hates whiny children. She’s a nanny. Ashlyn Gibbs, also hates her job, is a dental hygeniest.
  • And here’s someone who is taking pictures of customers or clients at her job and complaining about them online.
  • But there is a line, and that’s where ethics start coming into play, For example, this is yet another example of a public Twitter feed, totally searchable without any kind of special access, it was just me searching twitter for people who hate their boss.But in the Pietrylo decision cited there, employees of a restaurant set up a private MySpace page. It was only open to non-manager employees that were all friends, and it was password protected. Employees would talk to each other about work, complaining about managers and customers. Two managers found out about the page and (depending on what you read), either convinced or compelled an employee to give them her log in information. They then fired 2 of the members of the MySpace page. One of the fired employees sued. A jury found this access to be a violation of the Stored Communications Act and New Jersey surveillance laws because they intentionally accessed this electronic information without authorization.So there is a line out there that we can’t cross. And while courts are hazy on what your online expectation of privacy is, it does exist and a password is still a pretty clear indication of where you cannot go without access.
  • And speaking of unethical oversharing on social media, this story has been in the news a few weeks ago…..A Florida headmaster's daughter cost her family $80,000 when she bragged about their hefty lawsuit win in a dopey Facebook post.Patrick Snay, 69, had a fat check coming his way after settling a 2011 age discrimination suit with the school he once headed up, Miami's Gulliver Prepatory School, the Miami Herald reported.Teen's Facebook post costs family $80,000A teenage daughter celebrated her family's legal victory with a rant on Facebook.Snay sued the school after it declined to renew his contract and won a settlement that included $10,000 in back pay, another $60,000 to his attorney and $80,000 for him to keep.But his daughter, Dana, nuked the deal when she posted a bratty message about the settlement on Facebook, the Herald reported."Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver," she wrote. "Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT."The message circulated among the former Gulliver student's 1,200 Facebook friends and eventually made its way back to the school, who claimed it violated the settlement's confidentiality agreement.The state's Third District Court of Appeal agreed and threw out the discrimination ruling last week.In her ruling, Judge Linda Ann Wells said Snay violated the settlement's terms by gabbing to his daughter about it.Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/daughter-snarky-facebook-post-nukes-dad-80-000-settlement-deal-article-1.1709067#ixzz2wS6xrbFC
  • Competence and diligence comes up a lot, we’ll see that momentarily. You have to understand what we are dealing with now in terms of how social media works and how you get to use it as a lawyer.Confidentiality comes up in situations we aren’t really going to cover here – but where attorneys post online about their clients or their case or the judge or opposing counsel.And spoliation, another big one in the word of social media ethics.
  • And in terms of whether lawyers can “friend” or “follow” people on social media, these rules also get implicated,Especially truthfulness in statements to others, no contact with represented party, and dealing with unrepresented persons.So let’s talk real world examples!
  • I HEART HOT MOMS – get into spoliation issues later.Hacking means something. It means you criminally, wrongfully accessed electronic information. It does not mean you did a google search and found public, unprotected information. Attorneys have to understand how these sites work.
  • Cannedy is an AOL instant messaging/sexual assault of a minor case. Said they told attorney about the away message.In his defense, the trial attorney said he recalled it was an issue but “the issue eventually seemed to fizzle.”The reason it fizzled? Because the attorney didn’t look into it. I sort of understand this, because it has to be incredibly difficult to show that the message existed and to get it authenticated, but guess what, the court did not care: “A competent lawyer likely would have been able to introduce the disputed evidence, the away message, in an admissible form . . . Once introduced, the evidence of the away message would have been the cornerstone of the case. The message was powerful evidence that the minor had fabricated her allegations of abuse. . . . Accordingly, there is a reasonable probability that, but for trial counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome of the trial would have been different.”Weatherly – sheriff’s sale, no search of lien holders….
  • Allied Concrete v. Lester, 285 Va. 295Wife killed. Guy posted photos partying and wearing the I love hot moms shirt, etc. Attorney was served with discovery requests, saying produce the rest of your FB page. Attorney instructed client to “clean up your facebook and myspace” First client deleted the facebook page – signed a statement that he did not have a facebook page – then reactivitated it. Then he later lied and said he had never deactivated it, and the attorney lied and said he had never instructed his client to delete anything. Eventually this all came out. And Murray, the attorney was sanctioned $542,000 and Lester, the plaintiff, was sanctioned $180,000.
  • In Gatto, we have another creative order to allow access to a facebook page and then everything goes wrong. First plaintiff is ordered to give his password to opponents, and he does. Then when defense counsel logs into the fb page, plaintiff gets one of those automatically generated emails that says “An unfamiliar computer was used to log into your account.” So he then deleted his account.So December 16, account is deleted. Plaintiff apparently knows that after 14 days, FB deletes the information from deactivated accounts. So he says nothing and in fact participates in a status conference with defendants in which he agrees to download his account information and give it to the defendants on January 6. However, on January 20, he gets around to explaining that his account was deleted and in fact all information has been lost.The court actually took a temperate approach with this, which I think is a little surprising, and allowed an adverse inference against the plaintiff as to the contents of the deleted facebook page, but didn’t assign monetary sanctions.
  • In a New Jersey personal injury case settled in 2010 regarding an incident that took place in 2007, two defense attorneys, John Robertelli and Gabriel Adamo, allegedly caused Valentina Cordoba to send a friending request to a Facebook account belonging to the defendant in the case, Dennis Hernandez. Cordoba was a paralegal at RivkinRadler, the law firm to which Robertelli belonged. That friend request was approved, undoubtedly without knowledge that the request came from a paralegal at the opposing law firm. The lawyers opposing the personal injury case were thereby granted access to content that the plaintiff had posted which was not available to the public – including photographs, conversations, and video content that the defense sought to use as evidence to prove that the plaintiff's injuries were not as disabling as he claimed. Cordoba had initially been able to access Hernandez's Facebook updates publicly, but then Hernandez changed his account's privacy settings to prevent anyone but friends from viewing his profile. This was when Cordoba sent him a friend request.This evidence was deemed inadmissible because it was presented after the discovery deadline, but the attempt to present the evidence and the manner in which it was obtained was sufficient to cause Hernandez to seek the help of his attorney, Michael Epstein, in filing an ethics grievance against the two defense attorneys. There were several charges in the ethics complaint, including communication with a represented party, failing to supervise a non-lawyer, dishonest conduct and ethics violations through another person's actions or inducing such violations, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.Robertelli and Adamo claim that they instructed Cordoba to conduct a "broad and general internet search" for information about Hernandez that was available to the public, including monitoring his Facebook page, but that they did not tell her to friend him. Further, they claim not to have understood the way in which friending a person on Facebook works; in their answer to the ethics grievance, they stated that they believed that friending a Facebook user was automatic, that one simply clicked a button and had access to their friends-only information. They said that they did not understand that sending a friend request entailed extending an invitation that the other party first had to accept.The ethics inquiry against Robertelli and Adamo has not been concluded because the lawyers in question sued the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) for bringing the ethics case against them when the district panel had declined to do so. Their lawsuit has devolved into a jurisdictional question, as the Bergen County judge dismissed the suit on the grounds that he had no power to review and rule on the actions and decisions of the OAE. Robertelli and Adamo appealed the decision to dismiss the suit, and the OAE moved for the Appellate Division court to throw out the suit on the same grounds: that the Appellate Division lacks jurisdiction over the OAE's actions. Robertelli and Adamo have filed opposition papers protesting that their constitutional right to appeal should not be denied simply because the jurisdiction of the lower court has been questioned. Their suit is still unresolved, and Epstein and Hernandez
  • What about the world of employers and employees, apart from lawyers and law firms?
  • Again, bring up Rodriguez v. WalmarthereRodriquez we saw on an earlier slide but I think it’s also relevant here. That’s a 5th Circuit case in which a Walmart employee – a manager – violated the Wal Mart Social Media Policy, which “prohibits any conduct that adversely affects job performance or other associates. You can post complaints online, comments cannot appear “unrpfoessional, insulting, embarrassing, untrue or harmful.” In this case, employees called in sick and went to a party; pictures went up on Facebook and a manager saw them and commented about them. Fairly harmless “oooh, busted!” type comments. Regardless, this was taken as a violation of the social media policy, she was terminated, and she sued. The trial court found this was a legitimate and nondiscriminatory basis for firing her, and the 5th Circuit agreed.Also, recall the Judeh v. LSU case. You don’t technically need a social media policy to terminate employees over social media activities. A threat against co-workers or to destroy equipment of the employer can be enough to justify a firing. However, a well written policy can help employers from overstepping bounds in monitoring social media.
  • Here are a few examples I’ve seen around. Intel is pretty standard; keep business information confidential, be professional, and “disclose” in that if you are talking about your job make it clear that you speak for yourself.
  • Here’s an example from Ford, also pretty similar. And I like their (5) – everything is permanent.
  • And a social media policy can go overboard….When it comes to your social media policy, the NLRB wants you to remember to respect concerted activity -- even in the digital world. A recent NLRB memo reminds companies that enforcing highly restrictive social media rules in the workplace may be a violation of federal labor laws. The memo came about after a lawsuit involving supermarket chain Giant, in which the company implemented a policy against employees making posts on social media that included the store's logo or any information about the workplace, reports Fox Business. Essentially, it was a blanket ban.Keep It Tight and TailoredIn invalidating the policy, the NLRB found that the policy was overly broad and vague and violated Giant's employees' free speech rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).The memo reiterated that employees are allowed to, on their personal social media accounts, discuss "concerted activity" under Section 7 of the NLRB. Generally speaking, concerted activity refers to anything between employees that's related to improving the terms, conditions, and details of their employment. This includes factors like their working conditions and even their wages.So, if your social media policy is worded loosely, know that the NLRB could invalidate it. You certainly wouldn't be alone. Other giants like Costco have also had their social media policies axed by the NLRB for chilling employees' free speech rights.Keep a PolicyThe NLRB's cautionary tale doesn't mean any and all social media restrictions are a no-go, of course. While there may be a fair amount of guesswork involved in knowing how far is too far, it's safe to assume you can, and certainly should, still prohibit certain social media activity.Your company still has free reign to prohibit employees from bad-mouthing bosses or the company's products. Complaints about the work cafeteria is a closer call, since that could technically count as a comment on workplace conditions.
  • Milbank’s social media policyActually a big law firm but similar to oOracle appears to be of the ilk that using social media in the workplace is a hinderance to productivity because it could lead to too much personal use. Understandable? Yes. Too strict? Debatable. While it can be good to blur the line between personal and professional in social media, that balancing act isn't always appropriate in regulated industries.Employees must establish that all opinions are their own and not Oracle’s, but at the same time, distinguish that they are indeed employees of Oracle. Contradictory? No. Blog posts can increase brand exposure, but employees must be careful with what they say and how they say it, not divulging new features, products, and confidential information is ther major company policies that can seem overbearing --- Oracle, for example, has an extremely harsh social media policy.
  • Facebook has become an almost universally accepted social network. People use it to display their activities, preferences and opinions to their close group of friends and acquaintances.Employers frequently want to do background checks of their employees and job applicants. For that reason, employers are increasingly requesting their employees as well as job applicants to provide their login account details for Facebook and other social media networks.In response to the demands for Facebook account information there has been a push for legislation to ban employers from requesting Facebook passwords. Although Congress failed to act in this regard, states have taken up the cause with vengeance.To date, 13 states now ban employers from asking job candidates or their employees for their Facebook or other social media network username or password. Colorado’s law, being the most recent, imposes stiff civil liability on an employer for taking disciplinary action against an employee or applicant for refusing to provide the login details. Legislation is pending in another several other states to establish similar bans.Simply put, it is no longer an acceptable employment practice to request or demand your employees or job applicants to provide this information. Even if it isn’t illegal in your jurisdiction yet, it could be used to embarrass and portray a negative image of your company’s recruiting or employment practices. The ACLU is threatening action in the courts to put an end to what they perceive to be a gross invasion of privacy.
  • Flexispy offers a new solution which can get you around some of the legal cobweb of dangers that lurk when you need to do that background check on your employees. Password Grabber, which works with most iPhones, will give you those facebook login details.Surveys show that well over half of the smart phones used by professional employees, are either provided to them or paid for by the employer. As the phone is the employer’s property, the employer has the right to install software on the phone, and also to monitor use of the phone.Installing the FlexiSPY password grabber feature on a company phone is perfectly legal. However, we recommend certain precautions be taken when using password grabber to avoid legal liability. •Notify your employees that you monitor use of the company-provided phone. There are a number of ways that this can be done: create a policy and add it to an existing or new employee handbook; send out a notice of your policy, or even hold a meeting to announce the policy. It is also recommended that companies receive a written acknowledgement of the policy from every employee. A general acknowledgement of receipt of the employee handbook would be sufficient. •Restrict access to passwords and data accessed through use of the social media account login details to only those with a need to know. Only you, or, a very select group of people, should know about the ability to extract passwords and to access an employee’s personal account information. •Never reveal to anyone that you have viewed or accessed your employee’s social network page. •Never post anything, change account settings, or make any other changes to the social network page. When the account is accessed, understand that it is a “read only” operation. •Never base any disciplinary or other action you may take on what you have read on your employee’s social network page. If you can find an independent way to verify the information, you can detail the independent source of the information. Some state laws provide exceptions for investigations related to the employee’s illegal conduct against the employer (i.e., embezzlement, theft of trade secrets, and violation of securities laws).

Tweeting While You Work: Social Media and Ethics for Employment Lawyers Tweeting While You Work: Social Media and Ethics for Employment Lawyers Presentation Transcript

  • Tweeting While You Work: Social Media and Ethics Lauren E. Godshall
  • WHAT WE’LL COVER  Social Media Platforms and Use  Social Media and Discovery  Ethical Issues Confronted by Attorneys  Ethical Issues Confronted by Employers
  • SOCIAL MEDIA
  • Source: HootSuite, November 28, 2013
  • Source: HootSuite, November 28, 2013
  • MORE STATS  Over 1 billion unique users each month; 100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube each minute  Over 500 million tweets daily  Over 225 million users
  • FACEBOOK AND TWITTER  72% of all adult Americans have at least one social networking presence  One in every seven minutes spent online is spent on Facebook  Facebook users spend more than 10.5 billion minutes per day on Facebook  Twitter processed 5,000 “tweets” a day in 2007; by 2013, that figure had soared to over 500 million a day
  • DOES YOUR FIRM USE SOCIAL NETWORKING? 93% are on LinkedIn 71% are on Facebook 67% are on Twitter
  • See, e.g, Rodriquez v. Wal-Mart, 540 Fed. Appx. 322 (5th Cir. Sept. 19, 2013); In re White Tail Oilfield Services, No. 11-9 (E.D.La. Oct. 11, 2012) (Roby, Mag. J.)
  • See, e.g, Judeh v. LSU, No. 12-1758 E.D.La. (Oct. 10, 2013) (Vance, J.)
  • • Charles Wilson, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Out of Job after Live Ammo Tweet, The Washington Post (Feb. 23, 2011).
  • See, e.g, Pietrylo v. Hillstone Rest. Group, No. 06-5754 (D. N.J. Sept. 25, 2009)
  • ETHICAL ISSUES WITH TECHNOLOGY
  • Comment: To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology…. Client-Lawyer Relationship Rule 1.1 Competence A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.
  • ETHICS OF SOCIAL MEDIA  Duty of competence; diligence (1.1; 1.4)  Confidentiality of information (1.6)  Candor toward the tribunal (3.3)  Fairness / spoliation (3.4; FRCP 37)  No ex parte communications with judges (3.5)  Trial publicity (3.6)
  • ETHICS OF SOCIAL MEDIA  Truthfulness in statements to others (4.1)  No contact with represented party (4.2)  Dealing with unrepresented person (4.3)  Respect of third-party rights (4.4)  Unauthorized practice of law (5.5)  Advertising (7.2)  No dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation (8.4)
  • ETHICS: DILIGENCE AND COMPETENCE  Lawyer sanctioned for accusing opposing counsel (who found a public image on plaintiff’s own Facebook page) of hacking.  Allied Concrete v. Lester, 736 S.E.2d 699 (Va. 2013).
  • ETHICS: DILIGENCE AND COMPETENCE  Failure to investigate social media statement as inadequate assistance of counsel Cannedy v. Adams, 706 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir.) • Online searching = reasonable diligence? Weatherly v. Optimum Asset Management, Inc., 928 So.2d 118 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/22/05)
  • ETHICS: SPOLIATION
  • ETHICS: SPOLIATION See, e.g, Gatto v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 10-1090 (D. N.J. Mar. 25, 2013)
  • ETHICS: FRIEND REQUESTS  Friend request counts as contact, so do not friend a represented party.  Cannot pretend to be someone else to deceive and gain access to private page.
  • ETHICS: DISCOVERY
  • “In an era of increasingly pervasive social media use, employers must be mindful of the balancing act required between protecting the company and the employee’s individual right to engage in certain workplace discussions on social media…..”
  • Source: Intel.com, March 7, 2014
  • Although the Firm strongly discourages any lawyer or administrative employee from disclosing his or her association with the Firm when participating in discussions or asserting opinions on a Social Media site, if a lawyer or administrative Employee discloses his or her association with the Firm in such circumstances, a disclaimer along the following lines must be Included: “This material/opinion is my own and does not purport to represent the positions, strategies or opinions of my employer.”
  • But don’t forget Pietrylo!
  • THANK YOU! Lauren Godshall laurengodshall@curryandfriend.com @nolagodshall