Imagine preparing for an important hearing or trial and learning that the presiding judge is a Facebook “friend” of the opposing counsel. Or more, that the judge had tweeted or posted about the upcoming trial. The issue of judicial use and misuse of social media continues to perplex lawyers, judges and judicial ethics authorities alike. Consider these examples:
• In April, Louisville Judge Olu Stevens stirred up controversy by criticizing on Facebook a victim impact statement made in his court. The judge, who is African-American, deplored the claim in the statement that a home invasion and robbery committed by two African-American males had left a 3-year-old girl traumatized with fear of black men. While Judge Stevens initially made this emotional reaction to the statement during a sentencing hearing for one of the defendants, it was his Facebook post about the “generalized stereotyped and racist opinions” that drew fire, not only from members of the public who have called for Steven’s removal from office, but also from legal ethics scholars critical of the judge’s remarks.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
