Elon Musk completed his $44 billion purchase of Twitter.  Twitter is a form of social media platform called microblogging that allows users to exchange small elements of content such as short sentences, individual images, or video links.  It has become the town square where people meet, exchange ideas, and share their (or, as the concern can be, push not-fact-based) ideas.  As the owner and de facto editor, he controls how over 300 million people worldwide receive their news.  This includes not only what information is disseminated but who is allowed to participate.  But why should attorneys care?

The concern with Musk's purchase is that he may allow Twitter, in his claim that he does not want to stifle free speech, to allow certain people and ideas back on the platform.  The idea of freedom of speech is a good one.  And when there is bad speech, more speech to counter the bad should be encouraged.  But the concern goes beyond bad speech.  Hate speech and false speech should not be encouraged, especially when it encourages others to violence.  But again, why should attorneys care?

Last week, I wrote about how Alex Jones repeated falsehoods about the Sandy Hook Massacre should be a lesson to all attorneys - do not spread false information as facts on social media (YES, Twitter is part of social media!).  Twitter can be an easy "anonymous" platform where a person can get swept away with the emotional fervor that any information platform can create.  But in the day of technology and work-from-home environments, it can be easy to blur the line between your private and professional Twitter accounts.  (And just because your personal account is "anonymous" doesn't mean that your bar association may not find out it's yours!). So let’s not step into the crosshairs of our bar disciplinary bodies.

The rule(s) to guide us have been out there.  ABA Model Rule 7.1 provides a lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading. Interpretation of Comment 1 to the rule provides that social media is covered by 7.1. The State Bar of Michigan has the ethics opinion that a lawyer is responsible for all content that appears on the lawyer’s or law firm’s Twitter account and must ensure that information regarding legal services is not false, fraudulent, or misleading. MRPC 7.1. An Ethics Board attorney in Tennessee was discharged for twitting less-than-accurate, if not false, statements about the election.  There are more cases of disciplinary action against attorneys for making false statements on social media.  IMHO it's not worth the risk.

But the thought I want to leave you with is if your pool of potential clients is coming from a cesspool of those believing and pushing false information and encouraging violence, is that the type of potential client you want walking into your firm?

MTC