Ethics and Social Media

10:15 a.m.- 11:15 a.m.

Presented bySteven E. Ballard

Leff Law Firm, L.L.P.P.O. Box 2447

222 South Linn StreetIowa City, Iowa 52244-2447

Phone: 319-338-7551

2014 FAMILY LAW SEMINAR2014 FAMILY LAW SEMINAR

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 24FRIDAY, OCTOBER 24

10/16/2014

1

Technology Outpaces the Law

• Always has– Drones – search and seizure– Frozen embryos

• Always will– Internet

• Westlaw search for “social media” yields only 7 Iowa appellate court decisions

• Who “owns” an email for public records purposes?• Justice Streit

– Don’t these kids get it– Of course, it’s him who doesn’t get it

• Juries admonished to stay off social media• Yeah, right…

Impact of Social Media is Limitless

• Million Dollar Idea

– Movies

– College football ticket sales

10/16/2014

2

Online Research

• Google

• Facebook

• Twitter

• Linkedin

• Tumblr

• Instagram

• Other??

Other Places to Look

• Corporate Records

• Historical Web

• Public Records

• SSN Validator

• Dockets

• Professional Credentials

• Vital Records

• Expert Witness Rulings

• Writings

• Other

10/16/2014

3

Whom to Research

• Everyone– Opposing party– Witnesses– Expert witnesses

• Some of them are prolific online• Sometimes it’s part of their marketing• Blogs

– Clients– Better yet – prospective clients– Job applicants

• So, really, everyone

CLIENT ONLINE INSPECTION CHECKLIST

Person Searched: _______________________________________________

Date of Search:  _________________________________________________

Government/Court Websites

□ Iowa Courts Online

□ Pacer

□ County Recorder ‐ _______________

□ Iowa Land Records

□ City/County Assessor ‐ _______________

□ County Treasurer ‐ _______________

□ GIS Mapping

□ Other States

Newspapers

□ Press‐Citizen

□ Gazette

□ Quad‐City Times

□ Other Local newspaper ___________________________

Social Media□ Facebook□MySpace□ Twitter□ Linkedin□ Tumblr□ Pinterest□ Instagram□ Foursquare□ Google+□ Blogs

Search Engines□ Google□ Bing□ YouTube□ Pipl□ Spokeo□ ZoomInfo

10/16/2014

4

• 1) Start with Google. Search person’s full name.

• 2) Go to individual, more widely used websites and do search. 

– Keep in mind: Age group makes a difference. 

• This isn’t your father’s Facebook 

• One age group may use certain sites more than another age group. 

Discovery Issues/Strategies

• Requests for passwords

• Requests to ID ‘handles’ used online.

• What’s going on in your practice?

• How about getting online during a deposition and asking the witness to log on to see what’s there?

• How about responding to requests…

10/16/2014

5

So, How Do You Do It?

Jane Doe vs. Sally Smith• Smith assaults Doe with bar glass at a night club

• Smith charged with assault

• Smith is a prolific social media user

• Smith tells her lawyer one thing..

• Her online postings suggest something else

Our Specific Strategy

• Most of our findings came from: Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr

• We did not solicit anything. All information gathered from public posts.

– Note: Privacy settings may change over time.

– Make sure to check sites periodically even if private.

• We were more interested in what Smith posted, not what her friends posted about her.

10/16/2014

6

• Not as interested in posts Smith is tagged in as much as those she posted herself

• Still important though..• We can ask Smith to ID these 

people; information is discoverable.

• Subpoena these people—may have valuable information.

• Better source than “persons with knowledge” interrogatory

• Interrogatory/ deposition question:who is this Twitter user, contactinfo, knowledge about incident

Saving Posts

• Save into pdf format using Adobe Acrobat

– Click on Convert and save 

The adobe create button gets added to browser when you install Acrobat. If unable to see the Create PDF icon, do the following• In Internet Explorer, choose View > Toolbars > Adobe PDF• In Firefox, choose Firefox > Add Ons > Extensions, and then enable Adobe

Acrobat - Create PDF• In Google Chrome, choose Customize menu > Settings and then click

Extensions from the left pane. Enable Adobe Acrobat - Create PDF extension.

10/16/2014

7

• If don’t have Acrobat or “convert to PDF” button, then can screen shot the webpage by pressing “Print Screen” key on keyboard

• Then paste into other document and save 

• We saved posts by name of the respective social media site and the date we took screen shot 

• Some social media sites say date post was made– Facebook

– Tumblr

• Some don’t– Instagram

Timeline

10/16/2014

8

• Took Screenshot on 8‐16‐13• Instagram shows that post was made 186 days before 8‐16‐13

Note: WGW = White Girl Wasted

2 Days After Incident

10/16/2014

9

10/16/2014

10

Ethical Considerations

Don’t lie, cheat, steal

• It may be the electronic world

• But the usual rules apply

• Trust your gut

• Ask your kids

10/16/2014

11

IMPLICATED RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Iowa R. of Prof’l. Conduct 32:4.1 (2013).

Iowa R. of Prof’l. Conduct 32:4.2 (2013).

10/16/2014

12

Iowa R. of Prof’l. Conduct 32:4.3 (2013).

Iowa R. of Prof’l. Conduct 32:4.4 (2013).

10/16/2014

13

Iowa R. of Prof’l. Conduct 32:5.3 (2013).

Iowa R. of Prof’l. Conduct 32:8.4 (2013).

10/16/2014

14

MINING PUBLICLY VIEWABLE INFORMATION

“A lawyer who represents a client in a pending litigation, and who has access to the Facebook or MySpace network used by another party in litigation, may access and review the public social network pages of that party to search for potential impeachment material.” New York State Bar Ass’n Comm. on Prof’l. Ethics Op. 843 (Sept. 10, 2010)

“Accessing an adversary’s public Web site is no different from reading a magazine article or purchasing a book written by that adversary. . . . A lawyer who reads information posted forgeneral public consumption simply is not communicating with the represented owner of the Web site.” Oregon State Bar Formal Op. 2005-164 (2005)

“Nothing blocks an attorney from accessing a represented party’s public Facebook page. Such access requires no communication to, or permission from, the represented party . . . .” San Diego Cnty. Bar Ass’n Legal Ethics Op. 2011-2 (May 24, 2011).

“FRIENDING” UNREPRESENTED PERSONS

“[A]n attorney or her agent may use her real name and profile to send a “friend request” to obtain information from an unrepresented person's social networking website without also disclosing the reasons for making the request.” The Ass’n of the Bar of the City of New York Comm. on Prof’l. Ethics Formal Op. 2010-02 at 2 (Sept. 2010) (footnote omitted).

[L]awyer’s request for access to non-public information does not in and of itself make a representation about the Lawyer’s role. . . . [F]ailure to inquire further about the identity or purpose of unknown access requestors is not the equivalent of misunderstanding Lawyer’s role in the matter.

Oregon State Bar Formal Op. No. 2013-189 (2013).

Contra: “[T]he attorney’s duty not to deceive prohibits him from making a friend request even of unrepresented witnesses without disclosing the purpose of the request. Represented parties shouldn’t have “friends” like that and no one – represented or not, party or non-party – should be misled into accepting such a friendship.” San Diego Cnty. Bar Ass’n Legal Ethics Op. 2011-2 (May 24, 2011).

10/16/2014

15

DECEPTION

“[Rules of Professional Conduct] are violated whenever an attorney “friends” an individual under false pretenses to obtain evidence from a social networking website.” The Ass’n of the Bar of the City of New York Comm. on Prof’l. Ethics Formal Op. 2010-02 at 3 (Sept. 2010) (footnote omitted) (approving “truthful ‘friending’ of unrepresented parties as an authorized form of informal discovery).

“Lawyer may not engage in subterfuge designed to shield Lawyer’s identity from the person when making the request.” Oregon State Bar Formal Op. 2013-189 (2013)

[Having a third party “friend” a hostile witness on a social network without disclosing the third party’s affiliation with the lawyer] would violate Rule 8.4(c) because the planned communication by the third party with the witness is deceptive. It omits a highly material fact, namely, that the third party who asks to be allowed access to the witness’s pages is doing so only because he or she is intent on obtaining information and sharing it with a lawyer for use in a lawsuit to impeach the testimony of the witness. . . . Deception is deception.

Phila. Bar. Ass’n Prof’l. Guidance Comm. Op. 2009-02 at 3, 4 (Mar. 2009).

Lester v. Allied Concrete Company

• Truck driver pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter for death of Jessica Lester

• Lester’s husband and parents sued 

10/16/2014

16

• During discovery, Lester’s attorney told him to “clean up” Facebook account

• Client deleted 16 photos

DepressionPTSD

• Defense expert

– Log of Facebook activity

• Saw pages visited

• Saw that P edited profile 2 days after request

• Saw when P deactivated his pages

• Sanctions

– Attorney:

• $500,000

• 5 year suspension

– Husband:

• $180,000

10/16/2014

17

Iowa Rules of Court 32.1.1

• So, don’t lie, cheat, and steal – Duh

– But, don’t stick your head in the sand, either

• Rule 32:1.1– “A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”

– Hire some young people.

Generally Permissible 

• Review public information

• Use lawful subpoena to gain access to non‐client’s private social media

• Subject to certain limitations, advise clients about content of their social networking sites

• Use information discovered on social networking website in dispute

10/16/2014

18

Generally Impermissible

• Use deception to gain access to non‐client’s social media

• Contact represented person through social networking website

• Reveal confidential client information in posts

• Advise clients on taking down Facebook posts during litigation

Evidentiary Issues

10/16/2014

19

AUTHENTICATIONAuthentication in Iowa is governed by Iowa R. Evid. 5.901, which sets out exemplar methods of authenticating evidence by way of illustration. “Information found on social networking websites may be authenticated in the same manner as more traditional kinds of evidence.” See Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633, 638–39 (Tex. Crim . App. 2012) (listing direct testimony from witness with personal knowledge as one means to authenticate information stored on electronic media).” In Re A.D.W., 821 N.W.2d 778 (Table), 2012 WL 3200891 at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2012).

From the record before us—including (1) the similarities between the speech pattern presented in the messages and Campbell's speech pattern at trial; (2) the fact that the messages reference the incident and were sent just a few days after the incident; (3) testimony establishing that only Campbell and Ana have ever had access to Campbell's Facebook account; and (4) Ana's testimony that she did not have access to Campbell's Facebook account at the time the messages were sent—we conclude that there was prima facie evidence such that a reasonable jury could have found that the Facebook messages were created by Campbell. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence over Campbell's objection to authentication.

Campbell v. State, 382 S.W.3d 545, 552 (Tex. Ct. App. 2012).

Authentication

• “A piece of paper or electronically stored information without any indication of its creator source or custodian may not be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901.”

United States v. O’Keefe, 537 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2008)

10/16/2014

20

• youtube video

– How do you know when the events depicted actually occurred

– Anonymous “comments” are inadmissible hearsay an incompetent to authenticate

– Who uploaded the videos – get their testimony

– Case dealt with a band allegedly performing particular songs after an injunction was entered proscribing such performances

Sublime v. Sublime Remembered, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103813, 10‐11 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2013)

Confirming Facts/Foundation

• “Confirming Facts” to authenticate an email• Whose email account is involved?• Who posts under that account/name?• How do you know it’s the right guy?• Just because it came from Joe Smith’s account doesn’t prove Joe Smith sent/posted it– Added me to FB right after got off the plane– Saw his picture next to “Joe Smith” post and identified him– Texted him and content matched with FB posts– FB posts used distinct speech pattern– FB posts referenced facts known only to few people

10/16/2014

21

HEARSAY

Two of the three messages were sent by Smith. These messages were Smith's own statements, and both statements are therefore not hearsay under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A), because they are admissions by a party-opponent. The content of the messages sent by Smith are not hearsay, as defined by the rule, and were admissible in evidence. Waldrop's message to Smith could be hearsay. The State has offered no hearsay exception that this message would fall under.

Smith v. State, --- So.3d ---, 2013 WL 2400393 at *8 (Miss. Ct. App. June 4, 2013) (Unreleased opinion). “Kettles next argues that the statement ‘Dat money fake on dem videos’ was improperly admitted as hearsay. However, the statement was not hearsay because Kettles manifested an adoption or belief in its truth by responding ‘i know that.’” U.S. v. Kettles, 517 Fed.Appx. 514, 514 (6th Cir. 2013) (referring to comments on Kettles’ Facebook page left by Kettles and a friend in connection with a video Kettles linked to on his Facebook page) (citing United States v. Jinadu, 98 F.3d 239, 244 (6th Cir.1996)).

Acknowledgements• Geoffrey A. Belzer• Kimberly E. Rients Blair

Wilson, Elser, Mosokowitz, Edelman, & Dicker LLP      55 West Monroe Street – Suite 3800Chicago, IL 60603‐5001

• Professor Emily Hughes University of Iowa College of Law474 Boyd Law BuildingIowa City, IA 52242

• Melissa Breuer L‐1University of Iowa College of Law