The Oklahoma Bar Journal August 2023

as a birthday fundraiser via Facebook on a page that identified him as a judge. In connection with his prior discipline, he had promised to both refrain from mak ing political or fundraising posts and remove refer ences to his judicial role. 30 The California Commission judge for activity in a Facebook group and on Twitter in connection with efforts to recall a district attorney. The commission found that his online activity (and it was genuine activity, not passive membership in groups or just following pages) suggested bias against certain groups of people. 31 Commission on Judicial Conduct admonished a judge for publicly display ing on his Facebook page two photographs of himself wearing a county sheriff’s uniform (taken after he retired from law enforce ment) and his personal comments expressing his appreciation for law enforce ment officers and also describing his appearance at an event supporting law enforcement. The judge rec ognized that those viewing his posts and seeing him in a law enforcement uniform would reasonably question his ability to be impartial in cases involving law enforce ment and took full responsi bility for his actions. 32 The Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct rep rimanded a judge for on Judicial Performance publicly admonished a The New York State

messages sent to multiple women on social media platforms over a period of several years, ranging from flirtatious to overtly sexual in nature, most of which depicted him in his judicial robe. The judge acknowl edged that this conduct was beneath the dignity of the judicial office. 33 account, a Tennessee judge was reprimanded. 34 Other Facebook posts made by the judge stated, “Democrats won in the 2018 midterms by getting illegal aliens to vote,” and another claimed, “Illegal immigrants are responsible for a large num ber of crimes.” 35 These posts were deemed partisan in nature and a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 36 The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline publicly reprimanded a municipal court judge for using a pho toshopped image and signa ture of Dwayne Johnson, aka “The Rock,” in an endorse ment ad on her campaign’s Facebook page. The ad fea tured the judge in her robe next to the image of “The Rock.” She also commented, “I’m ‘almost’ taller than him. Almost.” The judge knew her campaign consultant had not received permission from Mr. Johnson when it was posted. She had the ad and her comment taken down the following day. 37 A Tennessee judge was publicly reprimanded and determined to have abused After posting links to anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim articles on his Facebook

judges considering whether their use of social media is appropriate. As social media becomes more per vasive in our society, judges must be able to discern what is and what is not proper social media usage. The Code of Judicial Conduct puts judges on notice that they must exercise caution in their use of social media: “A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other cit izens, and must accept the restric tions imposed by the Code.” 28 EXAMPLES OF JUDICIAL MISUSE OF SOCIAL MEDIA Unfortunately, there are many examples of judges across the nation whose social media use has raised ethical concerns and has run afoul of the proper conduct expected of judges. These are some of the more recent noteworthy examples: A Tennessee judge was pub licly reprimanded for giving online advice via Facebook on how to avoid arrests for shoplifting. He said his tongue-in-cheek tips on stealthy behavior and how *not* to hide the loot were meant to be entertaining and make people reflect on their choices. The commis sion reviewing his behavior determined it was neither dignified nor appropriate for a judge, especially one who hears criminal cases. 29 A South Carolina probate

judge who had previously been suspended for prob lematic social media posts was once again suspended (this time for 18 months) in part for solicitation of hurricane relief donations

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

26 | AUGUST 2023

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL