Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Can Judges 'Friend' Lawyers?
It should be no surprise that the continuing growth of social media tools such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn has led to questions about its use by members of the legal community, including members of the judiciary. In fact, New York's Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics'has just issued Opinion 13-39, issued May 28, 2013, exploring the ethical constraints of social media use by judges, following one it issued in 2009 (Opinion 08-176, issued Jan. 29, 2009).
New York is not alone in tackling this subject. In February, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility offered a formal opinion entitled “Judge's Use of Electronic Social Networking Media,” Formal Opinion 462, issued Feb. 21, 2013, and the subject recently has been debated and analyzed in a variety of states across the country (more on this below).
One interesting aspect of the judiciary's use of social media that many of these various opinions have faced is the seemingly straightforward subject of whether a judge must recuse him- or herself in the event a lawyer whom the judge has “friended” shows up in the judge's courtroom. Of course, this issue has important practical implications. The different opinions, however, have reached different results, as this article discusses. It would appear that the more experience judges, lawyers and bar groups have with social media, the more comfortable they all may become with the way judges and lawyers use it.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.