I came across this post and thought instead of paraphrasing I’d just put it on out there for you.

“Maybe it’s just as well that most bar associations remain in the dark about Facebook and other social media. Via Above the Law, comes news from True/Slant that:

The Florida Bar Examiners, the group that decides who gets to become a lawyer in Florida, is considering forcing some wannabe lawyers to be subjected to a thorough social networking investigation prior to their being knighted esquires. Florida bar examiners will look for evidence of substance abuse in applicants with a history of those problems, and will of course check to see if you would like to overthrow the government.

In particular, the Florida Bar intends to single out the following applicants:

• Applicants who are required to establish rehabilitation under Rule 3-13 “so as to ascertain whether they displayed any malice or ill feeling towards those who were compelled to bring about the proceeding leading to the need to establish rehabilitation;”
• Applicants with a history of substance abuse/dependence “so as to ascertain whether they discussed or posted photographs of any recent substance abuse;”
• Applicants with “significant candor concerns” including not telling the truth on employment applications or resumes;
• Applicants with a history of unlicensed practice of law (UPL) allegations;
• Applicants who have worked as a certified legal intern, reported self-employment in a legal field, or reported employment as an attorney pending admission “to ensure that these applicants are not holding themselves out as attorneys;”
• Applicants who have positively responded to Item 27 of the bar application disclosing “involvement in an organization advocating the overthrow of a government in the United States to find out if they are still involved in any related activities.”

The Bar’s policy doesn’t make much sense, though. If applicants have already admitted to a history of substance abuse, why does the Bar have a need to see photos of them on Facebook in a drugged state? Likewise, if applicants have a history of UPL allegations, is Facebook really going to help? After all, if a lawyer is committing UPL, is he or she going to post about it in a Facebook status report? (”Tricked a judge today, and represented a client even though I didn’t pass the bar.”) Though I don’t endorse examining Facebook at all, if the Bar is going to do it, then the policy should apply to all candidates and not just those who are already suspect.

Again, though I don’t endorse review of Facebook pages, this policy wouldn’t be out of step with what other employers are doing. The True/Slant piece notes that more than a third of managers admitted to not offering jobs based on what they found on applicants’ social media pages. Because reliance on social media in job selection is becoming more prevalent, Daniel Solove of Concurring Opinions suggests that, at the very least, managers put candidates on notice that they intend to check their Facebook accounts.

Do you think bar associations should rely on social media to determine bar admission? And where do we draw the line on those aspects of a bar applicant’s private life that can be deemed relevant to his or her fitness as a lawyer? Or does putting one’s private life on Facebook, by definition, make it public?”

Check out the original article here: Will Bar Associations Review Facebook for Applicants’ Fitness?

RealDealDocs.com is a division of Practice Technologies, Inc. the creators of SmartRules.com. SmartRules provides step by step guides to local rules and civil procedure for state courts & federal courts throughout the country.

Popularity: 30% [?]

The USMC has banned Myspace, Facebook, Twitter and other similar social networking sites citing a potential security risk. The ban is effective on these sites while Marines are at work, using the Corps’ equipment.  It does not effect Marines’ private use on personal computers outside of their jobs.

“These internet sites in general are a proven haven for malicious actors and content and are particularly high risk due to information exposure, user generated content and targeting by adversaries,” reads a Marine Corps order, issued Monday.

“The very nature of SNS [social network sites] creates a larger attack and exploitation window, exposes unnecessary information to adversaries and provides an easy conduit for information leakage that puts OPSEC [operational security], COMSEC [communications security], [and] personnel… at an elevated risk of compromise.”

The ban will last a year as of right now, coming after a warning in July that all web 2.0 sites could  cause network security issues. All types of viruses pass from user to user on these sites.

“The mechanisms for social networking were never designed for security and filtering. They make it way too easy for people with bad intentions to push malicious code to unsuspecting users,” a Stratcom source told Wired.com.

“Yet many within the Pentagon’s highest ranks find value in the Web 2.0 tools. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has 4,000 followers on Twitter. The Department of Defense is getting ready to unveil a new home page, packed with social media tools. The Army recently ordered all U.S. bases to provide access to Facebook. Top generals now blog from the battlefield.”

It should be interesting to see how this pans out. The Pentagon even has a newly-appointed social media czar, Price Floyd.

“What we can’t do is let security concerns trump doing business. We have to do business… We need to be everywhere men and women in uniform are and the public is. If that’s MySpace and YouTube, that’s where we need to be, too,” Floyd said.

Check out the original article: Marines ban Twitter, Facebook, other sites

RealDealDocs.com is a division of Practice Technologies, Inc. the creators of SmartRules.com. SmartRules provides step by step guides to local rules and civil procedure for state courts & federal courts throughout the country.

Popularity: 7% [?]