Florida State Bar on judges and "friending"; Litigation funding remains controversial

The NYT covers the Florida State Bar's action, and quotes our very own Steve Gillers.    . . . .     Is sophisticated funding of business-to-business suits OK, while funding of class actions is not OK (because it aims to create "perfect storms" rather than to seek justice)?  Juridica -- which funds business-to-business claims -- would answer "yes."

Comments

[stephen.gillers@nyu.edu]

I surmised that the division within the committee might be generational, with younger lawyers among those in the minority seeing no problem if lawyers who "may" appear before the judge (or may never) are the judge's "friend" and older lawyers in the majority. A member of the committee is quoted as saying that it was not generational. I suppose we'll never know. Or maybe we will. But I don't know what the denial really means. Does it mean that some older lawyers (at least one) also saw no problem? If that's what the denial means, and if the younger lawyers saw no problem, it's still generational as far as I'm concerned. I find it hard to believe that younger lawyers would see a problem but perhaps some do.

[John Steele]

Steve,

I think you're on to something.

I've also wondered about the significance of that word -- friend. When I discuss the issue with ethics types, the emotional power of that word looms large, even though 'friending" someone doesn't necessarily mean that they're really your "friend."

[Law school grad]

I find your comments in the article to have more common sense than the bar committee. The bar committee seems to have an unrealistic notion of the significance of Facebook "friends".

Or perhaps they do not realize that judges were frequently members of the local bar. The may have practiced in firms with attorneys who may later appear before them; they may have previously been active as volunteers, community organizers, or even politicians. Of course they will have many "friends" within the community, whether these prior friendships are memorialized on Facebook or not.

I understand the importance of avoiding the appearance of impropriety. But there seem to be far more troubling relationships that are allowed. For example, local attorneys in my community regularly make contributions to the election campaigns of judges who they will later appear before. Criminal defense lawyers commonly contribute to the campaigns of prosecutors. These dontations are allowed for various public policy reasons, but I find them far more likely to create the appearance of impropriety than noting that somebody is an acquaintance by adding them as a "friend" on Facebook.