Rule 3.10 provides that a full-time judge “shall not practice law.” Thus, although users may ask for legal advice via social media when they learn another user is a judge, the judge cannot respond. Accord Connecticut Informal Opinion 2013-6; Kentucky Advisory Opinion JE-119 (2010); New York Advisory Opinion 2008-176; Ohio Advisory Opinion 2010-7; ABA Formal Opinion 462 (2013). See also In re Bass, Public Reprimand (Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission March 18, 2013) (sanction of judge for private Facebook chat advising a woman who contacted him about how her brother should get his DUI matter into his court where he would “handle it,” in addition to other misconduct).
Further, advisory committees have broadly interpreted the prohibition to apply, not just to answering specific questions from other users, but to general social media posts that could be construed as legal advice.
For example, the West Virginia advisory committee stated that a judge could not post videos in which she answers questions about family law on her campaign web-site because she would be engaging in the practice of law and “potentially” in ex parte communications. West Virginia Advisory Opinion (February 6, 2016). In addition, although the committee stated that a judicial candidate (to whom the code applied) could post videos about general procedures and statutes on child support calculations on her Facebook page, it emphasized she must ensure “the explanations do not cross the line into legal advice or discussions concerning pending or impending matters.” The committee also warned that such videos were likely to generate follow-up questions that a judicial candidate could not answer.
Similarly, the Utah committee advised that a judge may post about legal topics on social media — unless the comments could be considered legal advice. Utah Informal Advisory Opinion 2012-1. The Massachusetts committee also stated that, although a judge may post “purely educational” tweets advising “trial lawyers on trial practice (e.g., preparing clients to testify, delivering closing arguments, conducting cross-examination),” the judge must “offer only practice tips and not legal advice.” Massachusetts Letter Opinion 2016-1. The Connecticut advisory committee approved a judge’s participation as an expert on a non-profit, non-partisan organization’s electronic “answer board” that provides journalists with information on legal and constitutional topics, but warned the judge to keep her answers factual and instructive without providing legal advice. Connecticut Advisory Opinion 2011-14.
Based on findings of the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission, the Arkansas Supreme Court removed a judge from office for explaining how to beat a DWI charge on a public on-line fan-site, in addition to other misconduct. Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission v. Maggio, 440 S.W.3d 333 (Arkansas 2014). Under the subject “to blow or not to blow,” the judge had posted:
You have the right to remain silent . . . so don’t say a word. Don’t open your mouth “smell of intoxicants” that is the probable cause for FST. Just hand the LEO your license, insurance and registration. Everything they need to write you the ticket (reason for the stop) is on those papers.
Never say a word. If ordered out of car. Get out and lean against car. Don’t move. Yes very possible you will be cuffed and stuffed. But at that time all they have is the violation for the stop.
Refuse the BAC test. Yes another ticket but better than the alternative. In the end the less evidence the best.
That being said 99% of folks on the side of the road all think hey I can “talk my way out.”
Of course, the single best advice is don’t drink and driver ever. LEO don’t play.
* * *
This post will be part of the summer issue of the Judicial Conduct Report, which is the second and final part of an article analyzing the advisory opinions and discipline decisions on social media and judicial ethics. Part 1, the spring issue, described the advice judicial ethics advisory committees have given judges regarding social media in general and the rules related to judicial duties in particular. Part 2, to be published in August, will cover off-bench conduct: abuse of the prestige of office, disclosing non-public information, providing legal advice, charitable activities, including fund-raising, commenting on issues, political activity, and campaign conduct. You can sign up to receive notice when a new issue is available.