Is Your Judge Your Facebook Friend?

• Author: David L. Hudson Jr.
• Pages: 24-25

Is Your Judge Your Facebook Friend?

Sharply divided Florida Supreme Court says it’s not a basis for disqualifi cation

By David L. Hudson Jr.

A judge’s Facebook friendship with an att orney

is not a legally su cient basi s to disqualify the

judge from that attorney ’s case, a shar ply divided

(4-3) Florida Supreme Court has ruled in a deci-

sion that produced three di erent opinions from

the seven jurists.

“A Facebook ‘friend’ may or may not be a

‘friend’ in the tradit ional sense of the word,”

Chief Justice Charles Ca nady wrote for the majorit y. “But

Facebook ‘friendship’ is not—as a cat egorical matter—the

functional equiv alent of a traditional friendship.”

The majority concluded that a judge and attorney

being Facebook friends does not mean t here is a

“close or intimate relationship” that might give r ise

to a need for the judge to step o the case.

Justice Jorge Labarga concurred with the

majority but wrote separ ately “to strongly

urge judges not to partic ipate on

Facebook.” He wrote that judges

being friends with law yers

on social media is “inv iting

prob lems .”

Three justices dis sented in

an opinion authored by Justice

Barbara Joan Pariente, who

has since retired . She wrote that

“recent history ha s shown that a judge’s

involvement with social media is f raught

with risk that c ould undermine confi dence

in the judge’s ability to be a neutral arbiter.”

She concluded: “The bottom line is that

because of their indeter minate nature and the

real possibility of i mpropriety, social media

friendships betwe en judges and lawyers who

appear in the judge’s courtroom should not be

permitted.”

The decision disagreed w ith the Florida

appeals court ’s decision in Domville v. State (2012),

which had ruled that a t rial judge’s friendship with a

prosecutor in a crimi nal case disqualifi ed the judge.

The appeals court concluded that t he social media

friendship “would create i n a reasonably prudent

person a well-rounded fear of not receiv ing a fair

and impartial t rial.”

The Florida Supreme Court’s decision also con-

fl ic ted with a 2009 ethics opinion from the

state’s Judicial Ethics Advi sory Committee.

That opinion held that a judge’s social

media friendship wit h an attorney appear-

ing before the judge would violate Canon

2B of the Florida Code of Judicial

Conduct, which provides: “A judge shall

not ... convey or permit others to convey

the impression that they are in a spe cial

position to infl uence the judge.”

“Of course Facebook ‘fr iendship’ cre-

ates the appearance of improprie ty, which

is what the JEAC said ... what Domv ille

PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY BRENAN SHARP/SHUTTERSTOCK; AP PHOTO/LYNNE SLADKY

24 || ABA JOURNAL MAY 2019

Ethics

Florida Chief Justi ce

Charles Canady

Practice