Judges can be friends with lawyers in Facebook

The Supreme Court (SC) of Florida, USA has ruled by a 4:3 majority that it is okay for judges to be friends in Facebook with the attorneys appearing before them and Facebook friendship as such is not a sufficient ground for disqualifying the judge from considering the matter in question on the ground of likelihood of bias. The judgment delivered on 15 November has philosophical underpinnings on the notion of friendship.

The motion was moved by a law firm Herrsein & Herssein in a trial proceeding. The disqualification of a trial judge was sought on the ground of his being friends with the attorney pleading before him. The motion got initially dismissed and was taken to the SC in appeal.

In the SC, the majority opinion expressed by Chief justice Charles Candy said that Facebook friendship cannot be equated with 'traditional friendship' and cannot therefore be considered as the sole ground for disqualification of the judges.

Justices Ricky Polston, Alan Lawson and Jorge Labarga concurred with the ratio of the majority decision. However, Justice Labarga went on to opine that judges should 'maintain extreme restraint' in using social media so as to give an impression of impartiality. CJ Candy also deliberated on the general legal standard of qualification and said that mere existence of friendship between judges and attorneys cannot legally be adjudged as a ground for disqualifying the judges. He opined that the standard for determining the legal sufficiency in a motion seeking to disqualify a judge is to see whether the alleged facts would put a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair as well as an impartial trial. 

Justice Barbara Pariente delivered the dissent holding that Facebook friendship is different from traditional friendship and the former enables a person to have a 'peek into another person's inclinations, aptitudes, interests, political opinions etc.' and thereby renders a golden opportunity to a shrewd attorney to manipulate the mindset of the judges that he is dealing with. In the opinion of the dissenting judge, equating friendships from cyberspace with those from real life will be a false equivalency. The bottom line was that because of the indeterminate nature of the relationship and real possibility of impropriety, friendships between judges and lawyers who appear in the judges' courtroom should not be permitted.