The State Bar Association of North Dakota Winter 2014 Gavel Magazine | Page 19

publish truthful information favorable to
the lawyer’s client; discuss the significance
and implications of social media posts
(including their content and advisability); advise the client how social media
posts may be received and/or presented
by the client’s legal adversaries and advise
the client to consider the posts in that
light; discuss the possibility that the legal
adversary may obtain access to “private”
social media pages through court orders
or compulsory process; review how the
factual context of the posts may affect
their perception; review the posts that
may be published and those that have
already been published; and discuss possible lines of cross-examination.”xi
Most of the opinion contains sound advice and includes citations to New York’s
ethics rules. Time will tell whether the
portion relating to removing social media
content will be refined or withdrawn.
i NYCLA Ethic Op. 745 at 1 (July 2, 2013),

available at http://www.nycla.org/siteFiles/Publications/Publications1630_0.pdf.
ii Id. at 2; see Crothers, Lawyers Using Social
Media: Gathering Party Information, The Gavel
(Spring 2012) at 10-11, available at http://www.
sband.org/UserFiles/files/pdfs/publications/
gavel/MayFinalWeb.pdf
iii Id.
iv Id. at 3.
v Id. at 4.
vi Id.
vii Id. at 3.
viii Id.
ix Allied Concrete Co. v. Lester, 736 S.E.2d 699,
702-03 (Va. 2013).
x Id.
xi NYCLA Ethics Op. 745 at 4.

The Gavel Winter 2014

17