Legal Ethics Forum

Google, Oracle ordered to Identify Paid Bloggers

Lots of folks commented on a big trial between Google and Oracle, and the judge has ordered both parties to disclose whether they paid bloggers, academics, and journalists to comment on the trial.  Both parties filed initial orders complying, but the Judge found Google's dislcosure lacking, and ordered additional disclosures after clarifying his order. The initial order is here; Google's initial dislcosure is here; Oracle's is here.

My own thought is that this is sort of like sponsored science -- if Bob writes an article about X compound, and Y corporation is the main manufacturer of X compound, I want Bob to disclose that he got paid by Y corporation to write about it.  With "soft" things like legal arguments, arguably it's even more necessary.  Now, I suppose the concern the judge has is that blogs may be read by an appellate court and influenced by it?  Is that the analog to the "buying public" in my science article analog?

South Carolina to Lawyers: Don't Answer, Don't Tell.

There's a website called "justanswer.com" that permits folks to ask questions on about anything, including law, for a fee. Then an "expert" provides an answer.  Can a lawyer participate?

South Carolina's recent bar opinion on that question (and answer) are here.  Here is the summary:

 

The website’s use of testimonials, endorsements, the word “expert,” and other misleading statements prohibit Lawyer’s participation. The site invites specific questions about specific legal matters and offers specific legal advice but uses buried small-type statements to attempt to disclaim the creation of attorney- client relationships and to warn against reliance on the advice. The Committee believes Lawyer’s participation under these circumstances would be improper.

As to legal information websites in general, if a website complies with all communications and advertising rules, Lawyer could participate in such a program but with specific caution against inadvertently forming an attorney-client relationship by offering more than basic information of general applicability. Where legal advice is provided, it is improper for Lawyer to accept compensation from the website provider without complying with Rule 1.8(f).

Sounds about right to me.

Website domain names for lawyers

Each year in PR when I get to advertising, I invariably use made up domain names as examples of what might be improper, or at least make you pause before you used it.  One I've used is kickasslawyer.com, and I found today that it has been taken by a criminal defense firm.  Mediocrelawyer.com is still available, as are averagelawyer.com and belowaveragelawyer.com...

I shudder to think what the drafters of the 1908 Canons would have said if they'd seen a shingle hanging with "Kick Ass Lawyer For Hire. Inquire Within."...

Firm Sues Anonymous Critic, Subpoenas Google

The Texas petition (complaint) is here.  Protecting a firm's reputation in the e-world is hard.

Jurors and the Internet

I've heard tales of litigants planting stories and buying Google keywords so that if jurors search they'll find stories that will hopefully sway the juror...

Related to that...  Texas is considering an amendment that would emphasize that jurors should communicate with anyone about the case outside the courtroom -- including the Internet.  An article and the proposed amendment are here.

Trial lawyers should consider asking for an instruction like this no matter where the venue.  

Interesting question: if I buy keywords hoping a juror violates the rule am I communicating with the juror ex parte?

Lawyers: Advise Your Clients that "Private" Facebook, etc., Posts are Discoverable

There's a new New York case here.  I don't see this as news, since putting "private" on my diary doesn't make it immune from discovery (if it's relevant, and, come to think of it, if I had a diary), but the issue gets litigated.  Lesson: make sure your clients know that "private" doesn't mean "nondiscoverable."

Kentucky weighs in on Judges and Facebook

Can a judge have a facebook page?  Maybe is the answer from Kentucky.  The opinion is here.

Jones Day's Trademark Suit Against Blockshopper.com

There's an article here.  Oh, and here.  Oh, and this one.

It's interesting, and frightening in the underlying information.  There's a webpage, blockshopper.com that tracks who buys what property and for how much in certain upscale neighborhoods.  Some Jones Day lawyers bought property in  those neighborhoods, and that truthful, factual information was posted on the site, along with truthful factual links to JonesDay.com and truthful, factual links to the individuals' bios on that webpage. 

What happened next is what is curious: Jones Day filed this complaint... for trademark infringement.   The sum of the alleged confusing and illegal conduct is using a link to the firm's website and linking to the two lawyers' bios who bought houses.  Now, I think the webpage is a bit frightening and seems to invade the individuals' privacy (not as a legal matter, or at least I don't know that, but certainly normatively to me it does).  But, trademark infringement?  Unfair competition?

I agree with others who have wondered about the merits of the suit.  Stay tuned.

DISCLAIMER:  To be clear, this is NOT a website about Jones, Day.  If you are confused, you should go to jonesday.com, and not "legalethicsforum.com" to find out information about Jones Day.  I suppose in the comments to this story, call them "Day Jones" to avoid confusion! :-)

NY backs off of over-regulating ads

There's an article here about how New York is backing off declaring all blogs "advertisements" and other nonsense.