Justice Eva Guzman on Why Judges Using Social Media Can Be a Good Thing
"I think [social media] helps the public and the bar to understand or at least know who the justices are; most people don't even know who we are."
October 11, 2019 at 04:16 PM
5 minute read
Due to the many legal and ethical ramifications of their profession, judges must exercise more responsibility than most other professions when using new technology. Social media, which is ubiquitous nowadays, presents a whole host of snares and pitfalls for members of the judiciary.
For instance, if they insert themselves into the minutia of people's day to day affairs by sharing photos from a beach, "liking" a "Distracted Boyfriend" meme, or commenting on current events, judges open the door to allowing family, friends and even total strangers into their lives through the Internet. Although these mundane social media actions have almost no negative consequences for most people as long as they remain polite and civil, they can have unintended consequences for judges. For instance, based upon what a judge posts, the result can be misrepresentation, misinterpretation, cyberbullying and even threats to privacy and safety.
Despite the obvious pitfalls, Texas Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman is a proponent of the use of social media by the judiciary, and believes the proper use of social media by judges can enhance the public's understanding of and confidence in the court system.
This week, Guzman spoke with Texas Lawyer about how judges can post responsibly and effectively.
How did you come to be interested in this topic?
I got on Twitter in 2009 when I was appointed to the court and I thought I needed an online presence. So my initial thoughts about being a judge on Twitter was it would be a good way to get out my campaign message to my constituency. Initially that was my motivation and I was mostly encouraged by the campaign folks to do it, but I have since evolved in how I view social media and judges.
How do you think social media can enhance the understanding of the judiciary by the public?
I think an issue for judiciaries across the board in our judicial system is the public's confidence in the system. One way judges use social media effectively is to communicate with the public about what we do and how we go about doing our work. Sometimes I tweet about why a case is important to engage with law school students. Sometimes it's a tweet about a bringing exhibits into a courtroom or because it helps facilitate the argument. So there are a number of factors a judge cares about, but I think [social media] helps the public and the bar to understand or at least know who the justices are; most people don't even know who we are.
What is the worst thing a judge can do on social media and how likely is something like that to happen?
I think there are a lot of dangers for judges who don't approach social media like they approach every interaction with the bar and the public. You have to think about the code of ethics and then you have self-imposed restraints toward decorum and showing respect for the process. I don't tweet about politics, I avoid it. I also try not to "like" anything that is objectively or subjectively overly political. I think these days you can really get into trouble, so you have to be careful, because the citizens coming to your courtroom need to see you as impartial and not as overtly political, otherwise I don't think they're going to come into your courtroom thinking they're going to get a fair shot if they perceive the judge to be overly political. I don't think any judge should get on social media without reviewing the code of ethics and understanding from the outset what those parameters are going to be and how they're going to exercise restraint.
Would an ombudsmen be more helpful to respond to unfair comments and criticism than judge personally meeting the complaints?
Sometimes judges are unfairly criticized and we can't respond and should not respond. So in the past, I have seen different lawyers on their own respond to criticism here and there, but there is no formal system for that and I'm not sure we'd want it anyway. It just goes with the job, and if you can't face the criticism then you probably ought to find another line of work because one side is always not going to necessarily be happy. I personally don't think an ombudsman is necessary and the criticism just goes with the territory.
How many of your colleagues on the bench are active on social media?
Justice Debra Lehermann has a Twitter account and is on Facebook; Justice Jeffrey S. Boyd is on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram; Justice Jane Bland has a Facebook account, I don't know if she's on Instagram; Justice Paul W. Green has a Twitter and Facebook account, but I don't know if he ever uses it; Justice Brett Busby is very active on social media right now; Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht has Twitter account but I don't think I've ever seen him tweet, but he's got it so maybe he does every now and then.
|Read More
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllReal Estate Attorney of the Year Finalist: John T. Duncan III
Real Estate Attorney of the Year Finalist: Kimberly Schlanger
Texas Legal Awards: Q&As With Real Estate Attorney of the Year Finalists
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250