A new filing before the Florida Supreme Court could bring new scrutiny to jurists' social media activity, amid conflicting district court opinions.

It hinges on a nuance that could open the door to attorneys seeking greater access to judges' Facebook accounts to determine the extent of jurists' interaction with attorneys who appear before them, and if these “friendships” warrant recusal.

The filing comes in the case of a North Miami lawyer and his firm, who are asking the state Supreme Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and step into the fray.

Insurance defense attorney Reuven T. Herssein and the Law Offices of Herssein And Herssein, which does business as Herssein Law Group, want a review of conflicting decisions from the Third and Fourth District Courts of Appeal. They argue judges appear biased when adjudicating cases involving Facebook friends—a notion the Third DCA rejected.

The case started as a dispute between Herssein and its former client, respondent United Services Automobile Association, for breach of contract and fraud over unpaid fees. It led to a push by Herssein to disqualify Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beatrice Butchko over her social media connection to Israel Reyes, the attorney for a USAA executive accused of witness tampering.

A previous jurist, Judge Antonio Marin, had ordered an evidentiary hearing on the witness-tampering allegation. But the case transferred to Miami-Dade's Complex Business Litigation Division before that could happen and was assigned to Butchko, who refused to hold the evidentiary hearing.

Herssein suggests the judge's Facebook friendship with Reyes influenced her ruling.

Reyes did not immediately respond to requests for comment by deadline, and ethics rules prevent judges from commenting on pending litigation.

Herssein petitioned the Third District Court of Appeal for a writ of prohibition to disqualify Butchko, but the panel sided with the trial judge.

The opinion conflicts with a 2014 ruling from the Fourth DCA and two advisory opinions in 2009 and 2010 from the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.

“A random name drawn from a list of Facebook 'friends' probably belongs to a casual friend, an acquaintance, an old classmate, a person with whom the member shares a common hobby, a 'friend of a friend' or even a local celebrity like a coach,” Third DCA Judge Thomas Logue wrote, with Judges Ivan Fernandez and Edwin Scales concurring. “An assumption that all Facebook 'friends' rise to the level of a close relationship that warrants disqualification simply does not reflect the current nature of this type of electronic social networking.”

But now, Herssein suggests the court unintentionally left jurists open to scrutiny.

“It potentially opens the judge up to discovery of their social media communications to establish the degree of friendship,” he said.