Court isn’t a social media platform.

It’s the rare inquiry that involves the rule that addresses trial publicity.  Alas, in that it’s becoming more and more rare to find a lawyer not on social media, I think today’s message bears mentioning.

Rule 3.6 is the trial publicity rule.  It prohibits “extrajudicial statements that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”

Whoa.  Try saying that three times fast.

Anyhow, lately I’ve sensed a general feeling that arguments made in pleadings and court are seeping into lawyers’ social media posts, thereby raising Rule 3.6 concerns.

I disagree.

Based on the information I’ve reviewed when responding to inquiries and screening complaints over the past few years, I believe that the accepted norms of social media posts are seeping into pleadings and arguments.

I don’t say that with admiration for those causing the seepage.

Court is court.  It’s not the kitchen table, the town square, the bar, or Facebook. Give it the respect it deserves. Or, read Rule 3.5(d).

Last week, Professor Bernabe blogged about a Texas lawyer and client who were “’sanctioned $150,000 for the client’s ‘outright lies’ in litigation and ‘mountain of evasiveness’ in discovery.”  His post is here.  It links to this ABA Journal story, which, in turn, cites to a post on

I’m not going to get into the misconduct that resulted in the sanction. For those interested in learning more about it, the court’s order imposing the sanction is here.

Rather, I want to highlight a statement made by the other lawyer.  Per the ABA Journal, “Opposing counsel Foster Johnson told that he hoped that the sanctions would be a warning to other lawyers.”

Then, the money quote:

  • “ ‘Lawyers at times forget filing motions and pleadings is not like using Twitter,’ Johnson said. ‘You can’t just say anything you want when you file a complaint. You can’t say anything you want when you file a summary judgment motion.’”


To paraphrase this blog’s muse, “say it in a Tweet it’s a knockout, but you say it in a court you’ll be kicked out.”

Remember, in pleadings & arguments:


Don’t say I didn’t say I didn’t warn ya.

Take reasonable precautions to protect client data. The End.

My job includes educating lawyers as to the duties imposed by the Rules of Professional Conduct.  With respect to client information, the duty is to take reasonable precautions to protect against inadvertent disclosure or unauthorized access.

Lawyers often push back.  I’m asked:

  • if I encrypt email and data, I’m good, right?
  • if I use ABC Cloud Storage company, I’m good, right?
  • XYZ Cloud Storage company is risky, right?

I will not answer “yes” or “no.”

For instance, what encryption tool do you use?   Does your cloud storage vendor encrypt data in transmission, at rest, or both?

Further, I will not bless, endorse, or disapprove of companies, vendors, or products. Maybe when I leave this job and go work for one of the legal tech companies.  For now, however, that is not my role.

I understand your frustration.  But, I explained myself in this post when I wrote:

So, people often ask “what are reasonable precautions?”

It depends.

Nobody likes that answer.  But it’s correct.

For instance, do you mean “what are reasonable precautions when it comes to cloud storage?”  Or, are you asking whether a lawyer has a duty to encrypt e-mail? Wait, maybe you’re talking about your duties when crossing the border? No, no, I get it now:  you’re asking if a lawyer has a duty to disable auto-complete. Oh my gosh, no – you’re referring to the hallmarks of trust account scams.

No matter the mode of communication, no matter the place that information is stored, a lawyer must safeguard client information. And, as I explained here, it makes perfect sense not to get into the habit of re-evaluating a lawyer’s duty with every new technology.  Whatever the next new thing is, a lawyer’s duty will remain the same: to take reasonable precautions against the inadvertent disclosure of or unauthorized access to client information.

A lawyer’s duty to take reasonable precautions to protect client information does not change with technology.  Today’s duty is the same that would exist if we lived in Westeros and communicated with clients by raven.  As I blogged here:

No, the question should not be “is this new way of storing information ethical?”  Nor should it be “is it okay to use smoke signals to communicate with my client?”  Rather, whenever the next big thing comes along, the question should be “does this means of transmitting and storing client information provide reasonable precautions and safeguards against unauthorized access and disclosure.”

It’s not just me.  As the ABA indicated in Formal Opinion 477:

“What constitutes reasonable efforts is not susceptible to a hard and fast rule, but rather is contingent upon a set of factors. In turn, those factors depend on the multitude of possible types of information being communicated (ranging along a spectrum from highly sensitive information to insignificant), the methods of electronic communications employed, and the types of available security measures for each method.”

The ABA went on:

“Therefore, in an environment of increasing cyber threats, the Committee concludes
that, adopting the language in the ABA Cybersecurity Handbook, the reasonable efforts

. . . rejects requirements for specific security measures (such as firewalls,
passwords, and the like) and instead adopts a fact-specific approach to business
security obligations that requires a ‘process’ to assess risks, identify and implement
appropriate security measures responsive to those risks, verify that they are
effectively implemented, and ensure that they are continually updated in response
to new developments.”

Again, when transmitting, communicating, and storing client information and data, a lawyer has a duty to take reasonable precautions against inadvertent disclosure or unauthorized access.

Which gets us back to the beginning of this post.

I’ve not avoided the question “what are reasonable precautions?”  Indeed, 2.5 years ago, I posted: The Could: What are Reasonable Precautions?  Last November, I re-posted it.  I’m going to paste it in again at the end of this post.

For now, I’ll leave you with this: a lawyer’s duty is to take to reasonable precautions to protect against the inadvertent disclosure of and authorized access to client information.

Image result for images of "the end"

Related posts:

And, the full text of the post The Cloud: What are Reasonable Precautions?


Last Friday, I presented a CLE for the Rutland County Bar Association. My assigned topic: the ethics of storing client information in the cloud.  I started by saying that I hoped it was my final seminar on the topic.  I was serious.

Let’s walk through this.

In general, a lawyer has a duty not to disclose information relating to the representation of a client absent client consent.  See, Rule 1.6.  A lawyer also has a duty to keep client property safe.  See, Rule 1.15.

I view the cloud as the latest in a long line of different places to store information.  In that sense, the cloud is not different than manila folders, boxes, offices, attics, basements, barns, file cabinets, file cabinets with locks, storage facilities, hard drives, floppy disks, CDs, and thumb drives.

No matter where a lawyer stores client information, a lawyer must act competently to protect the information against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure. See, Rule 1.6, Comment [16].  When transmitting client information, a lawyer must take reasonable precautions to prevent the information from coming into the hands of unintended recipients.  Rule 1.6, Comment [17].

So, think about cloud storage like this:  client information is electronically transmitted to a place where it will be kept.  Thus, a lawyer must take reasonable precautions to protect client information both while it is in transit and while it is at rest.

In fact, that’s almost exactly what the VBA’s Professional Responsibility Committee said – SIX YEARS AGO when it issued Advisory Ethics Opinion 2010-06.  Here’s the digest of the opinion:

  • “Vermont attorneys can utilize Software as a Service in connection with confidential client information, property, and communications, including for storage, processing, transmission, and calendaring of such materials, as long as they take reasonable precautions to protect the confidentiality of and to ensure access to these materials.”

(Aside: for anyone wondering why I included an advisory opinion about “Software as a Service” in a post on cloud computing, I remind you that Rule 1.0’s duty of competence includes tech competence.)

The question I hear most often is this: “what are reasonable precautions?”  In Rutland, I suggested to the audience that they already know the answer, if only by treating the cloud as if it were a storage facility out on Old County Road. Some questions you might ask when considering that facility:

  • who do you let into this facility?
  • do you require a passcode or badge for the gate?
  • are there locks on the individual units?
  • who besides me has a key or knows the combination?
  • can i get into my unit whenever i want to?
  • what happens to my files if I don’t pay or if you go out of business?

Indeed, take a look at page 6 of the VBA Opinion.  The Committee suggested some of those exact questions when considering a cloud vendor.

Or, take a look at this post from Robert Ambrogi.  He writes that “[s]ome basic questions to ask of a cloud vendor, distilled from various ethics opinions, include:

  • Is it a solid company with a good reputation and record?
  • Can you get access to your data whenever you want, without restrictions?
  • If your service is terminated – by you or by the company – can you retrieve your data?
  • Does it allow use of advanced password protocols and two-step verification?
  • What are its internal policies regarding employee and third-party access to your data?
  • Is your data encrypted both while in transit and while at rest on the company’s servers?
  • How is your data backed up?
  • What security protections are in place at the data centers the company uses?”

Finally, remember that asking the questions isn’t enough.  You need to understand the answers or find someone who does.  For example, imagine this:

  • You:   Will my data be encrypted in transmission and at rest?
  • Vendor:  Yes.  In transmission, we use a BTTF Flux Capacitor.  At rest, we use the latest cloaking technology from Romii.
  • You.  Sounds awesome. Sign me up.

Umm, no.  You just signed up to star in the next entry in Was That Wrong.

In conclusion, you may store client information in the cloud so long as you take reasonable precautions.  This entry includes links that will help you determine what “reasonable precautions” are.  Don’t fear the cloud but know what you don’t know.

Speaking of which, info on the BTTF Flux Capacitor is HERE. And, for more on Romii cloaking technology, go HERE.

Lesson from a disbarred prosecutor: don’t post that.

In 1991, Sal Perricone started working as an Assistant United States Attorney.  Last week, he was disbarred.

The disbarment order from the Louisiana Supreme Court is here.  The Legal Profession Blog and the ABA Journal covered the story.

Long story short, for many years, Perricone used various pseudonyms to post comments to stories on  Some were about LSU football.  The Geaux Tigers comments didn’t get him into trouble.

No, Perricone ran afoul of the rules by posting comments about cases being prosecuted by his office. The disbarment order quotes several of his online comments.  I’m not going to detail the comments here.  To get a sense, read the disbarment order.

It’d be easy to read the decision and conclude that Perricone’s conduct was so bizarre that it’s unlikely to be conduct that lawyers need to be warned to avoid.


But there’s a lesson in the decision.  Be careful what you post to social media!  And the Louisiana Supreme Court took great pains to drive home that lesson to lawyers.

First, a few rules to remember:

  • Rule 3.6. Trial Publicity: the first paragraph prohibits a lawyer who is participating in a matter from making “an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and that will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a judicial proceeding in the matter.”
  • Rule 3.8. Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor: paragraph (f) prohibits a prosecutor from “making extrajudicial statements that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.”
  • Rule 8.4(d): the rule prohibits conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Here’s Louisiana Supreme Court’s warning for us all:

“In this age of social media, it is important for all attorneys to bear in mind that
‘[t]he vigorous advocacy we demand of the legal profession is accepted because it
takes place under the neutral, dispassionate control of the judicial system.’ Gentile
v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1058 (1991). As the Court in Gentile wisely
explained, ‘[a] profession which takes just pride in these traditions may consider
them disserved if lawyers use their skills and insight to make untested allegations in the press instead of in the courtroom.’ Id.

“Respondent’s conscious decision to vent his anger by posting caustic, extrajudicial comments about pending cases strikes at the heart of the neutral dispassionate control which is the foundation of our system. Our decision today must send a strong message to respondent and to all the members of the bar that a lawyer’s ethical obligations are not diminished by the mask of anonymity provided by the Internet.”

Emphasis added.

Remember: Rule 3.6, the rule on trial publicity, is NOT limited to prosecutors.

Yet another example of The Hammer Doctrine:  don’t post that.

Or, for you younger readers, posting information related to the representation of a client to social media should make you think of the Cardi B Doctrine:

red light, red light, stop!


See the source image