Lawyers & Social Media – Adding Flames to Fires

Ah, social media. Facebook, Yelp, you name it, social media is out there, and lawyers are using – and misusing it. Here are some recent examples that highlight the issues confronting us – and why it is best to recognize the problems up front – so you don’t have to hire me to represent you in front of the Disciplinary Board later.

Consider Attorney John Mahoney of Washington, DC, who got into a conflict with a former client, who thought his fees were excessive, and his expenses were unwarranted and unnecessary. The client also was displeased with his representation during mediation.

The client posted comments about the attorney on a website. In his response, Attorney Mahoney revealed specific information about the case, the client’s emotional state, and what transpired during your attorney-client relationship – although he did not identify the client by name. Although the investigation did not support the client’s allegations against the attorney, he nevertheless violated the Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6’s prohibition against revealing client confidences.

In particular, the lawyer included the name of the client’s employer, the dates on which certain events occurred, and other detailed information that could lead back to his former client. He added to his problems by violating Rule 8.4(c) when he “posted a further response on the website concerning Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation of the client’s allegations and Disciplinary Counsel’s statements. Specifically, although Disciplinary Counsel advised you that your postings on the website about the client were inconsistent with your obligations under Rule 1.6, you posted another response on the website stating that Disciplinary Counsel had ‘clear[ed]’ you and quoted a sentence from a letter that omitted information about the Rule 1.6 violations that we found meritorious.” Click here to read the DC Disciplinary Decision.

Or, consider Attorneys John Robertelli and Gabriel Adamo, whose New Jersey Supreme Court case focuses on procedural issues regarding the New Jersey Disciplinary process. With that caveat, the case’s genesis was Facebook. Here’s what happened:

“On March 10, 2007, a police car driven by a sergeant with the Oakland Police Department allegedly struck a pedestrian, Dennis Hernandez. Hernandez claimed that he suffered permanent injuries, and commenced suit against the Borough, the police department, and the sergeant. Plaintiffs, who are attorneys licensed in New Jersey, were employed by the law firm that represented the defendants in the lawsuit. In order to obtain information about Hernandez, plaintiffs directed a paralegal employed by the firm to search the internet. Among other sources, she accessed Hernandez’s Facebook page. Initially, the page was open to the public. At a later point, the privacy settings on the account were changed to limit access to Facebook users who were Hernandez’s “friends.” The [Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE)] contends that plaintiffs directed the paralegal to access and continue to monitor the non-public pages of Hernandez’s Facebook account. She therefore submitted a “friend request” to Hernandez, without revealing that she worked for the law firm representing defendants or that she was investigating him in connection with the lawsuit. Hernandez accepted the friend request, and the paralegal was able to obtain information from the non-public pages of his Facebook account.

“Hernandez learned of the firm’s actions during discovery in the lawsuit, and objected to defendants’ use at trial of the documents that the paralegal obtained from his Facebook page. He also filed a grievance with the District II-B Ethics Committee, asserting that plaintiffs violated the RPCs by contacting him directly through his Facebook page without first contacting his attorney. The Secretary of the District II Ethics Committee, with the consent of a public member, declined to docket the grievance, having concluded that the allegations, if proven, would not constitute unethical conduct. Hernandez’s attorney then contacted the Director of the OAE (Director) and requested that the OAE review the matter and docket it for a full investigation and potential hearing.

“After further investigation, the Director filed a complaint against plaintiffs with the District XIV Ethics Committee. Plaintiffs requested that the Director withdraw the complaint, contending that the OAE was precluded from proceeding after the DEC declined to docket the grievance. The Director refused to withdraw the complaint, and plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Superior Court to enjoin the OAE from pursuing the matter. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the Supreme Court and the ethics bodies that it established have exclusive jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary matters. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s determination in an unpublished decision.”

The New Jersey Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’ petition for certification and held that, consistent with the broad authority that the Rules of Court grant the Director and the important goals of the disciplinary process, the Director has authority to review a grievance after a DEC Secretary has declined to docket the grievance. The OAE may therefore proceed to prosecute plaintiffs’ alleged misconduct.” Click here to read Robertelli v. New Jersey Office of Ethics.

All because of Facebook.

In short, be careful, get guidance, and avoid being too social on social media.

 

 

 

Learn About Social Security Disability – Dan Siegel to Speak at Delaware County Bar on August 31st

The Social Security Administration pays disability benefits through two programs: the Social Security disability insurance (SSDI) program and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. Benefits received through these programs may be relevant to personal injury, workers’ compensation, family law and other matters.

Attorneys often overlook the importance and impact of Social Security Disability benefits on their clients’ cases. To help attorneys assist their clients, Dan Siegel will discuss “Social Security Disability for Non-Social Security Disability Attorneys” on Thursday, August 31, 2016 from 12:30 to 1:30 p.m. at the Delaware County Bar Association  in Media. This CLE, on the final day of the August compliance period, will provide an overview of the Social Security Disability/SSI claims process, explain how clients can receive benefits, and answer common questions about the SS system.

Click here for more information about the program.

Need CLE Credits? Consider Dan Siegel’s Upcoming Course on Dealing with Client Reviews

Dan Siegel teaches numerous continuing legal education courses, each with a practical “information you can use” approach.  Dan’s next course is Bad Review + Bad Response = Good Way to Have an Ethical Problem, on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 10:15 a.m.  The program is one of many CLE programs at the Bucks County Bar Association’s “August Marathon CLE Day” in Doylestown. The course will discuss”

    • Whether you choose to be online or not, your clients will write reviews. Unfortunately, angry clients are more likely to write about you than happy clients.  This program will: (1) Explore he practical issues surrounding getting good reviews ; (2) Offer ways to monitor your     reputation; and (3) Address the ethical implications about dealing with reviews.
    • Click here for more information and to register.

Debunking the Myths of Workers’ Compensation Fraud

In you read the newspapers and listen to the ads by the insurance companies, the biggest problem in workers’ compensation is fraud by employees. According to some the entire system is filled with employees who are too lazy to work and just want to glom off the system. These doomsayers are wrong. There is very little fraud in the workers’ compensation system and in fact many of the worst offenders are the employers and insurance companies who are crying “wolf.”

Workers’ compensation attorney Dan Siegel addresses the myth of the “F” word in his column in Pennsylvania Law Weekly, highlighting many facts that are often overlooked or purposely not discussed. For example, employers often miscategorize employees as “independent contractors” in order to avoid paying their insurance premiums. Or, insurance companies file petitions when they know there is no legitimate basis to do so. It is because of these “bad egg” employers that Pennsylvania was forced to pass the Construction Workplace Misclassification Act in 2011.

In reality, however, fraud is a very small part of the workers’ compensation system in Pennsylvania, and Dan’s column squarely addresses and debunks the myths. Click here to read the column.

Next Week – April 7th – CLE- Workers’ Compensation for Non-Workers’ Compensation Lawyers – With A Free Copy of Dan Siegel’s Book

REMINDER: On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 12:30 p.m. I will present my program, “Workers’ Compensation for Non-Workers’ Compensation Lawyers” at the Delaware County Bar Association Headquarters in Media. All paid attendees will receive a complimentary copy of my book, Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Law: The Basics: A Primer for Lawyers, Workers, Medical Professionals & Others, a $49.95 value. The book is the only resource that also includes a complete copy of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act and its regulations.

The Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act is lengthy, complex and confusing. In addition, lawyers who do not regularly handle workers’ compensation claims – including attorneys who represents clients in criminal, family, bankruptcy, Social Security and personal injury matters – need to know the basics in order to provide better legal assistance to their clients. In this program, I will help lawyers, as well as employers, medical providers, insurance carriers and others, to understand the basics of Pennsylvania law.

REGISTRATION & LUNCH: 12:00 p.m. – 12:30 p.m.
SEMINAR TIME: 12:30 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
COST: $35.00 for DCBA Members; $45.00 for Non-Members; WORTH: 1.0 Substantive CLE Credit Hour

Click here to register for the program.

%d bloggers like this: