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 Time will tell whether the portion relating to removing social media content will be refined or withdrawn.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