Colorado Supreme Court Colorado Judicial Ethics Advisory Board (cjeab)
| Publication year | 2022 |
| Pages | 64 |
FROM THE COURTS COURT BUSINESS
Colorado Supreme Court Colorado Judicial Ethics Advisory Board (CJEAB)
C.J.E.A.B. Advisory Opinion 2022-05 (Finalized and effective September 19, 2022)
Background
LinkedIn is an online social media website that focuses on professional networking and career development. Millions of professionals use LinkedIn to post resumes, search for jobs, and interact with other professionals. Some use LinkedIn as a tool to search for speaking opportunities, join boards, or be notified of breaking news articles relevant to their profession. Many courts and bar associations have LinkedIn pages where users may search for information about the organization or view the organization's membership. The Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado Supreme Court, and Colorado Court of Appeals all have LinkedIn pages.
Every LinkedIn user has an account profile, which lists the user's name, current employer, a short biography, and space to post a resume if the user wants to include one. Like other interactive social media platforms, LinkedIn lets users "connect" with one another, which allows the user to see what their connections post, comment on, or react to.[1] In turn, the connection can view the same information of the user with whom they connect. Any user can react to posts by using symbols to "like," "celebrate," "support," "love," show something is "insightful," or be "curious" about something. Users may also comment on posts, share a post by reposting it, or send a private message to a connection.
A few factors distinguish LinkedIn from other online social networking platforms. First, users may list their skills and "endorse" the skills of a connection, business, or organization. An endorsement is a way to recognize any professional abilities or services.[2] Second, when a user comments or reacts to a post on most social networks like Twitter or Facebook, the original creator of the post is notified of the user's action. But when a user comments or reacts to a post on LinkedIn,
not only is the original creator notified that you commented, but LinkedIn takes your comment and inserts it into the feed of your network It shares with your contacts your comment. Even if you are commenting on someone completely disconnected from your other contacts, LinkedIn will still share your comment and their post in the feed of your network. This means you have the opportunity of placing yourself, your ideas, and your insights in front of a much wider audience that extends far beyond the limits of your own network.[3]
Thus, by default, anything a user posts, shares by reposting, comments on, or reacts to on LinkedIn is broadcast to the user's connections and appears on the user's profile. [4] Users may, however, control their privacy settings to specify the audience they want to reach for each published post.[5] For instance, posts may be limited to connections, members of a LinkedIn group, or attendees of an event. Conversely, users may change their settings to reach a wider audience to allow anyone on LinkedIn or Twitter or any web user, whether they have a LinkedIn profile or not, to view posts. Once a user has selected a visibility option, it is saved as that user's default privacy option.[6] A visibility option may not be changed after a post has been shared.
The CJEAB has been asked whether a sitting judge may have a professional profile on LinkedIn, and if so, to what extent a judge may be active on the site and with whom a judge may connect. This opinion addresses the ethical implications of judges using LinkedIn to post, comment on, endorse, connect with, or react to posts made by themselves and others.
Issues Presented and Brief Answers
1. May a judge have a LinkedIn profile?
▪ Answer: Yes. A judge may have a professional LinkedIn profile that identifies the judge as a judicial officer. Alternatively, a judge may choose not to identify as a judicial officer. Irrespective of whether a judge identifies as a judicial officer, however, the judge must assume his or her identity as a judge will be known and must conduct himself or herself in a manner consistent with the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct (Code).
2 .May a judge post, repost, comment on, or react to general information on LinkedIn, including public legal decisions?
▪ Answer: Perhaps. A judge may post and repost general information on LinkedIn, including public legal decisions, subject to the qualifications discussed below. A judge should be wary, however, of commenting on or reacting to posts in general, including public legal decisions or articles concerning public legal decisions.
3. May a judge have connections on LinkedIn, and if so, what are the limitations?
▪ Answer: Yes. In general, a judge may have connections, including lawyers, on LinkedIn subject to the qualifications mentioned below.
4. May a judge endorse a connection?
▪ Answer: No. A sitting judge may not endorse the skills of a connection or endorse a business because doing so would be an abuse of the prestige of judicial office. If, however, a judge has personal knowledge of a connection's skill set (e.g., the connection was a former law clerk), the judge may provide that person a reference.
5. May a judge connect to a local, state, national, or specialty bar association on LinkedIn?
▪ Answer: Yes. As long as the bar association is not discriminatory or partisan, the judge may connect with a local, state, national, or specialty bar association.
Applicable Provisions of the Code
Several rules and canons apply to a judge's LinkedIn account. Rule 1.2 provides that "[a] judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety." Comment [1] provides that "[p]ublic confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct and conduct that creates an appearance of impropriety. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge."
Rule 1.3 provides that "[a] judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of others or allow others to do so," but comment [2] provides that "a judge may provide a reference or recommendation for an individual based upon the judge's personal knowledge."
Rule 2.4(A) provides that "[a] judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism," and subsection (B) provides that "[a] judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment." Similarly, subsection (C) provides that" [a] judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge."
Rule 2.9 prohibits judges from "initiat[ing], permit[ting], or consider [ing] exparte communications, or considering] other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending or impending matter...."
Rule 2.10(A) provides that" [a] judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing," but subsection (D) permits the judge to make public statements in the course of official duties, explain court proceedings, or comment on any proceeding in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity, subject to Canon 1, which requires judges to uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Canon 3 requires a judge to conduct personal and extrajudicial activities in a way that minimizes the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office. Rule 3.1 governs extrajudicial activities in general and clarifies that "[a] judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, except as prohibited by law or this Code," but when engaging in such extrajudicial activities, a judge shall not
A. participate in activities that will interfere with the proper performance of the judge's judicial duties;
B. participate in activities that will lead to frequent disqualification of the judge;
C. participate in activities that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge's independence, integrity, or impartiality;
D. engage in conduct that would appear to a reasonable person to be coercive;
E. make use of court premises, staff, stationery, equipment, or other resources, except for incidental use for activities that concern the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, or unless such additional use is permitted by law.
Rule 3.5 provides that "[a] judge shall not intentionally disclose or use nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to the judge's judicial duties."
Rule 3.6 prohibits judges...
To continue reading
Request your trial