Judicial Ethics of "Friending": Facebook and the Bench

Eugene Volokh reports on a recent decision that addressed the propriety of a judge presiding over a case in which one of the attorneys is his or her Facebook "friend."

In Chace v. Loisel (Fla. Ct. App. [5th Dist.] Jan. 24, 2014), the Florida appellate court found that a judge need not recuse himself simply because he is Facebook "friends" with one of the attorneys:
 

In Domville v. State, 103 So. 3d 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), the Fourth District addressed a Facebook issue with regard to judges “friending” attorneys through social media. That court determined that a judge’s social networking “friendship” with the prosecutor of the underlying criminal case was sufficient to create a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial in a reasonably prudent person.
We have serious reservations about the court’s rationale in Domville. The word “friend” on Facebook is a term of art. A number of words or phrases could more aptly describe the concept, including acquaintance and, sometimes, virtual stranger. A Facebook friendship does not necessarily signify the existence of a close relationship. Other than the public nature of the internet, there is no difference between a Facebook “friend” and any other friendship a judge might have.
Domville‘s logic would require disqualification in cases involving an acquaintance of a judge. Particularly in smaller counties, where everyone in the legal community knows each other, this requirement is unworkable and unnecessary. Requiring disqualification in such cases does not reflect the true nature of a Facebook friendship and casts a large net in an effort to catch a minnow.
[Footnote: Of course, there are situations in which a relationship between a judge and a litigant or attorney is so close that a judge should recuse himself or herself.]

The post by Volokh contains links to other authorities that have discussed this issue.

Category: 

Tag: 

By: