63
Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter: @FlaFamilyLaw ybkglaw.com

Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Social Networking

for the Family Lawyer

Ronald W. NelsonLenexa, KansasTwitter: @KansasDivorcekansas-divorce.com

Brian KarpfWeston, FloridaTwitter: @FlaFamilyLawybkglaw.com

Page 2: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

TOP SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES*

November 1, 2013 by eBizMBA.com1 Facebook 750,000,000

2 Twitter 250,000,000

3 LinkedIn 110,000,000

4 PInterest 85,500,000

5 MySpace 70,500,000

6 Google + 65,000,000

7 Instagram 50,000,000

8 DeviantArt 25,500,000

9 LiveJournal 20,500,000

10 Tagged 19,500,000

*unique monthly users

Page 3: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

TOP SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES*

November 1, 2013 by eBizMBA.com1 Google 900,000,000

2 Facebook 700,000,000

3 Yahoo 500,000,000

4 YouTube 450,000,000

5 Wikipedia 350,000,000 *unique monthly users

6 MSN 325,000,000

7 Amazon 250,000,000

8 Ebay 210,000,000

9 Twitter 200,000,000

10 Bing 165,000,000

11 Craiglist 150,000,000

Page 4: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 5: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Why should we care?

Page 6: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 7: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 8: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 9: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Ethics

Page 10: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

DOs and DON’Ts

DON’T hold yourself out as something you are not

Page 11: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 12: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

DOs and DON’Ts

DON’T hold yourself out as something you are not

DO NOT reference personally identifiable or private information about clients or cases.

Page 13: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 14: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

1.6 Confidentiality of Information

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).

Page 15: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

DOs and DON’Ts

DON’T hold yourself out as something you are not

DO NOT reference personally identifiable or private information about clients or cases.

DO NOT use social media (or any media) to pursue ex parte communications with the court

Page 16: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 17: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

DOs and DON’Ts

DON’T hold yourself out as something you are not

DO NOT reference personally identifiable or private information about clients or cases.

DO NOT use social media (or any media) to pursue ex parte communications with the court

DO NOT give legal advise on social media sites.

Page 18: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 19: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

The Initial Client Meeting

Page 20: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

PrivacyAsk clients about their social media accounts:

What social media do you use (expansive)?

What are your screennames/IDs?

Who has access to/knowledge of accounts/passwords?

How do you use social media?

When have you posted; how often?

Page 21: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Discuss use of account privacy settings & limiting others’ access

Page 22: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 23: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 24: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 25: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Advise clients to be aware of what others post online, what is available on others’ accounts – and that there’s virtually no way to stop it.

Page 26: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 27: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 28: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 29: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Advise clients to think before posting ANYTHING

Page 30: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 31: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 32: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Advise clients to limit or discontinue social media use

Page 33: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 34: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Advise clients to limit or discontinue social media use – but be very careful about how you do it.

Page 35: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 36: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 37: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Investigation

Page 38: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 39: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 40: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

4.1 Truthfulness In Statements To Others

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

Page 41: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Rule 4.2 Communication with Person Represented by Counsel

In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.

Page 42: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Rule 4.4 Respect for Rights of Third Persons

(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.

Page 43: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

8.2 Maintaining The IntegrityOf The Profession

(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.

Page 44: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Discovery

Page 45: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

"Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life." But what if the people in your life want to use your Facebook posts against you in a civil lawsuit? Whether and to what extent online social networking information is discoverable in a civil case is the issue currently before the Court.

Largent v. Reed, Penn Ct Common Pleas

Page 46: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

“While a social networking or other kind of personal website might well contain depictions of specific instances of conduct, such a website must be deemed a gestalt and not simply a conglomeration of parts. When regarded as itself, a social networking or personal website is more in the nature of a semi-permanent yet fluid autobiography presented to the world.”

People v. Orlewicz, – Mich.App. – June 14, 2011

Page 47: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 48: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 49: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:
Page 50: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Evidence

Page 51: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Electronically stored information is admissible when:

Relevance

Authentic

Is not hearsay or material falls under an exception to the hearsay rule

Probative value outweighs prejudicial effect

Lorraine v. Markel American Insur. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534

(D.Maryland 2007)

Page 52: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Evidence - Relevance

FedREvid 401.

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

Page 53: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Evidence – Authentication

FedREvid 901

(a)In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

Page 54: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Evidence – Authentication

“The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. [The applicable evidence rule] does not erect a particularly high hurdle, and that hurdle may be cleared by circumstantial evidence.”

Manuel v. Texas, Tx Crim Appeals, 12th Dist., Aug 31, 2011

Page 55: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Evidence – Authentication

Authentication may be obtained by:Asking the purported creator about the profile/content

Reply letter doctrine

Circumstantial evidence

Information Directly from Social Networking Site

Computer forensics

Page 56: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Evidence – Authentication

Authentication may be established by a document’s appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with surrounding circumstances.

U.S. v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2000)

Page 57: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Evidence – Authentication

In this case, the internal content of the MySpace postings – photographs, comments, and music – was sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish a prima facie case such that a reasonable juror [fact finder] could have found that they were created and maintained by the appeallant.

Tienda v. State of Texas, 5th Ct Crim Appeals, PD-0312-11 (Feb 8, 2012)

Page 58: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Evidence – Hearsay &Exceptions

FedREvid 801(c)

“Hearsay” means a statement that:the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

Page 59: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Evidence – Hearsay & Exceptions

FedREvid 801(d):

A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:

Page 60: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Hearsay Exceptions – Prior Statement by Declarant

(1) The declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement:

(A) is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition;

(B) is consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; or

(C) identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier.

Page 61: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Hearsay Exceptions – Prior Statements of Opposing Party

(2) The statement is offered against an opposing party and:

(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;

(B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true;

(C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject;

(D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or

(E) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The statement must be considered but does not by itself establish the declarant’s authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E).

Page 62: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Hearsay Exceptions Regardless Whether Declarant is Available as a

Witness

FedREvid 803.

The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

Present sense impression

Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition.

Excited utterance

Reputational evidence

Recorded recollections

Page 63: Social Networking for the Family Lawyer Ronald W. Nelson Lenexa, Kansas Twitter: @KansasDivorce kansas-divorce.com Brian Karpf Weston, Florida Twitter:

Social Networking

for the Family Lawyer

Ronald W. NelsonLenexa, KansasTwitter: @KansasDivorcekansas-divorce.comwith Ashlyn Yarnell

Brian KarpfWeston, FloridaTwitter: @FlaFamilyLawybkglaw.com