By Carlyn Kolker

Think before you 'friend'

1/20/12 Last fall, Summary Judgments attended a conference on judicial ethics; when the topic turned to what role judges could play on Facebook and other social networking sites, the room fell silent, the tap-tap of the thumbs on Blackberries halted and dozens of judges tensed up.

We've all felt the tug of getting a "friend" request we didn't know quite whether to accept or not. But what happens when you are a judge and that potential "friend" is a litigant who appears before your court? Or one who is appearing before you right now? That's more than a social dilemma - it's an ethical one.

In an ethics advisory opinion dated December 28 and released on Thursday, the Massachusetts Committee on Judicial Ethics said that while judges can certainly keep accounts on Facebook or other social networking sites, they can't have friendships with lawyers and litigants who appear before them. "In terms of a bright-line test, judges may only `friend' attorneys as to whom they would recuse themselves when those attorneys appeared before them."

Advisory opinions are typically issued when a judge has a question about a specific situation that may pose ethical issues and asks his or her fellow judges to weigh in. They're not binding; however, judges tend to listen to the recommendation of their peers.

Five other states have issued ethics advisory opinions about judges' roles on social networking sites, according to Cindy Gray of the American Judicature Society. Some permit judges to be "friends" with litigators who appear before them; others do not.

Florida caused a mini-uproar  in judicial circles in November 2009 when its ethics advisory committee said that judges' online Facebook friendships with litigators who may appear before them creates the appearance of a conflict of interest. Some judges pleaded with the committee to lighten up; but the ethics committee didn't budge.

California has taken a confusingly compromised approach, saying that judges can be friends with lawyers who "may" appear before them - but not who have pending cases. Meanwhile, Ohio, New York and Kentucky are more permissive. They allow judges to be "friends" with litigators who appear before them, but caution that they must follow the same judicial conduct guidelines that apply to them in the so-called real world.

"Social interaction between a judge and a lawyer is not prohibited," the Ohio opinion, dated December 2010, states. "Yet, a judge's actions and interactions must at all times promote confidence in the judiciary."

Gray, who heads the Judicature Society's Center for Judicial Ethics, says that Ohio, New York, California and Kentucky have all gone through some lengths to qualify how judges must conduct themselves judiciously on-line.

"Even the opinions that say it's OK for the judge [to be friends with litigants]don't seem terribly enthusiastic about it," said Gray. "It's clearly something that judges should be careful about."

Case overload

1/20/12

Georgia has a "two-headed" appellate system that must be overhauled, state Supreme Court Justice David Nahmias told a roomful of lawyers, according to the Augusta Chronicle. Because of quirks in Georgia state law, the Georgia Supreme Court hears many cases, such as certain divorce and property disputes, that the intermediate appeals court does not hear. Georgia's appeals courts are among the busiest in the nation, Nahmias maintains; the Georgia Supreme Court hands down about 350 opinions a year. In contrast, Summary Judgments notes that the U.S. Supreme Court typically hands down about 75 opinions. Bottom line: those Georgia justices are busy folk.

Double Love

1/20/12

Two Courtney Love posts in one week! Who knew the rocker could be the subject of such legal notoriety?

On Thursday Summary Judgments told you how Courtney Love helped contribute to a pivotal moment in social media history when she defended a defamation suit over Twitter posts. Today, we bring to you news that she triumphed in a lawsuit by her New York landlord over $54,000 in back rent. A New York County Housing Court judge ruled that Love was properly paying her rent under the latest rental agreement.

Quite some legal bills Love must be racking up over time.

John Paul Stevens goes on Colbert

1/20/12

We told you we would bring you any urgent breaking news on the two-year anniversary of Citizens United, one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of our time. And if this isn't urgent breaking news, we don't know what is: former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens appeared on The Colbert Report on Thursday night to discuss his dissent in the 5-4 Citizens United decision.

Sure, Stevens has done the media circuit since he retired from the bench and released his memoir, Five Chiefs. But an interview with comedian Stephen Colbert is something precious indeed; Colbert has launched a so-called Super PAC - the kind of vehicle of unlimited campaign donations that Citizens United blessed - and is exploring a run for "President of South Carolina." (Huffington Post has put together a five-part series this week on Colbert's extreme case of mockery-wrapped-in-irony).

On the show, Colbert calls Stevens "a quitter," talks him up about the Supreme Court basketball court, and makes him opine on the Citizens United opinion in ten words or less. Check out the interview for yourselves.

Pro bono legal help via a public school

1/20/12

A 35-year-old public high school history teacher with a law degree runs a free legal clinic at his Chicago school - one of the best places to reach lower-income clients, the Chicago News Cooperative, via the New York Times, reports. The Chicago Law and Education Foundation runs on a $3,000 budget, nearly all of which came from a grant from a community group. The clinic refers some cases to other pro bono organizations, and also assists with everything from domestic abuse to loan modification cases. "This is a way of bringing legal services to where poor people are - in the schools," clinic founder Dennis Kass says.

Shouts out to Citizens United

1/20/12

It was two years ago today that the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark 5-4 ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC, which loosened restrictions on corporate and union spending in elections. The ruling, of course, will be felt acutely in 2012, a presidential election year. To start your Friday, here is a round-up of some reactions to the ruling; We will update with any newsworthy additions throughout the day.

-About two dozen people protested the decision at the Iowa statehouse, the Associated Press reports, carrying signs decrying the influence of money in politics.

-Maryland Congressmen Christopher Van Hollen and John Sarbanes want a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling, the AP reports. "Sarbanes admits it won't be easy," the AP writes, in a bit of understatement.

Writing in Politico, Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, a Washington-based group that aims to cut down on money in politics, says the decision is already "wreaking havoc" on the presidential election season. Wertheimer says that organizations are secretly contributing "hundreds of millions of dollars" in campaign-related spending and that so-called Super PACs, which advocate for a particular candidate, are serving as "vehicles to circumvent and eviscerate" campaign limits on individuals. Wertheimer supports disclosure laws that would require groups to reveal their spending, treating the Super PACs as arms of the candidates they support and replacing the Federal Election Commission with a "real" enforcement agency.

-A Republican Arizona state legislator has introduced a bill in that state to require companies and unions to disclose the source of the money they use to make contributions, according to the Tucson Sentinel. There are similar bills in California, Massachusetts, Maryland and Vermont, the paper says.

Summary Judgments for Jan. 19

Summary Judgments for Jan. 18

Summary Judgments for Jan. 17

Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal