Using Social Media for Discovery Has Ethical Implications.
By Thomas G. Wilkinson, Jr. and Lindsey E. Wilkinson
It has become common practice for lawyers to mine social media pages of parties and witnesses for discovery purposes. But can the urge to dig up dirt on opposing parties cause lawyers and their staff to overstep the line into 'risky business' practices or even potential for lawyer disciplinary consequences?
Millions of people regularly post personal information and photographs on Facebook and other social media sites. That personal information may include details undermining the strength of pending complaints, such as personal injury or employment claims. Many lawyers will access the social media pages for opposing parties and witnesses as a routine matter before taking their depositions, and will look for information for use in cross-examination or impeachment. Quite often they will find a plaintiff claiming a disabling injury who has posted photos of him or herself engaging in strenuous physical activity or extreme sports and showing no signs of injury. This is a potential gold mine for defense counsel, and of course a nightmare for plaintiff's counsel, who are now also routinely scouring their own clients' social media pages for potential evidentiary material. 
These practices have produced a series of state bar ethics opinions attempting to define the contours of permissible conduct by lawyers wishing to gain access to an opponent's social media postings. In the first opinion addressing "friending" an opposing party to gain access to the content on their Facebook page, the Philadelphia Bar's Professional Guidance Committee opined that it was misleading for an attorney to cause his paralegal to "friend" the opposing party to gain access to private social media postings or photographs. In a recent opinion the San Diego bar's ethics committee concluded that it was improper for a lawyer to friend an opposing party that is represented by counsel because it would violate the traditional rule against direct contact with represented parties. Put another way, who needs "friends" who are really adversaries?
Courts are also addressing issues related to the discoverability of social media information and reaching somewhat inconsistent results. So far it is fair to conclude that a generalized request to produce anything and everything from all social media sites used by a party will be rejected as overbroad. But a tailored request for material directly related to the allegations in the case, such as photographs of the plaintiff with an alleged leg injury water-skiing or hiking will likely be deemed fair game. Tell your clients to resist the urge to talk about their case or their injury online, as that information is likely discoverable and not protected by any privilege.
Thomas G. Wilkinson, Jr. is a member of Cozen O'Connor's Commercial Litigation Practice Group and heads the firm’s alternative dispute resolution practice. He concentrates his practice in business litigation, business torts, complex insurance coverage, and professional responsibility matters.

Comments (3)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endBrian Koncius - July 21, 2011 10:27 AM
Attorneys also need to be aware of the issues that arise when they friend their clients. It provides too many opportunities to potentially destroy the attorney-client privilege. Consider treating your social networking accounts in the same manner you do your trust accounts. Do not comingle your clients with personal or business friends, just as you would not comingle client funds with personal or business funds.
Phil Eschels - July 22, 2011 9:16 AM
Thanks, this was very interesting. Now that Facebook has made it easy for each member to download his or her entire history on Facebook, obtaining the data from, for example, a plaintiff in an employment discrimination case (who usually claims to have suffered extreme emotional distress as a result), is fairly simple. In addition, given this simplicity, courts should be more willing to deny objections from Plaintiff's counsel to producing it (assuming it's relevance, of course). This may reduce the temptation to use potentially unethical methods to obtain this information.
Todd M. Galante - July 22, 2011 10:50 AM
There is no doubt that Facebook and other social media sites are great sources of information that may be used in litigation, trial and other proceedings. However, as the article suggests, an attorney is always an attorney and must comply with his/her duties, obligations and restrictions on certain acts under applicable rules of attorney ethics.
From a professional responsibility standpoint, counsel is deemed to know their ethical duties, responsibilities and limitations. Regular periodic review of applicable state Attorney Rules of Professional Conduct and the ABA Rules of Professional Conduct (the "Rules") is a great start. Reviewing published Ethics Opinions is the next step of knowing the applicable law. However, sometimes, the above does not answer the attorney's question or drive home a specific course of action. What can an attorney do in such circumstance?
If an attorney is unsure of his/her ethical duties, responsibilities and/or limitations on certain action after reading the applicable Rules and Opinions, the attorney may (and probably should) seek advice on the subject. This can be accomplished by, among other things, (a) contacting the relevant state Office of Attorney Ethics and speaking to legal counsel there (generally legal counsel will give guidance and/or direct counsel to appropriate ethics opinions. Counsel will not give an opinion on the question at hand), (b) speaking with an experienced and well regarded fellow attorney in his/her firm, or (c) retaining a qualified attorney ethics expert/attorney to give a legal opinion on the matter (which should be in writing). As a general matter, and provided the attorney seeking the opinion in (c) above actually relied on and followed it, the legal opinion may serve as a shield for the attorney in the event his/her action is subject to an attorney ethics grievance/inquiry. That may be the case even if the opinion is later found to be wrong.
(DISCLAIMER: The foregoing is not intended as, nor should it be deemed, considered, construed as, or relied upon as legal advice or a legal opinion. Additionally, counsel and others reading the above should always consult local and other applicable law in their jurisdiction to both understand the law and determine a proper course of action in their jurisdiction.)