Social Media Affect Class Action Lawsuits

Fortunately, an impartial judge will rule against any improper tactics by lawyers or litigants. Although social media can privide more timely "comments" on cases, it's really nothing new as lawyers or others could previously use mail or newspapers to put out comments or recommendatons on cases. I don't see any real dangers on social media use by the bar, they have too much to lose if not careful with their words and actions.

There have been a number of other cases where lawyers have criticized judges, discussed the details of their cases, and even revealed aspects of their personal lives that are troubling to their professional positions.  Lawyers are people too, and they make many of the same mistakes that others have made with social media technology (with the added factor that theirs is a regulated profession).

As you say, lawyers could use other ways to broadcast their opinions in the past -- OpEd pieces, letters to the editor, brochures, tv spots, interviews, etc. -- so public sharing of opinions isn't new. Nowadays, of course, there is no filter or need of funding to blast that message to an audience: Social media takes care of that, and you can tell people what you think about any subject via an array of mediums. A gag order only covers participants in a case, right, so anyone else is free to speculate -- including attorneys who aren't involved in that case. It seems silly, career-wise, for a lawyer to risk alienating a judge who may preside over his/her cases in the future but I guess if someone's passionate enough about a topic, then caution goes out of the window in their quest for justice.

Some of the big differences in social media (versus conventional communiciations) include: 1.  The (potentially) broad audience available, often at next to no cost; 2.  The instantaneous nature of the communication (which may be unedited, and sometimes ill-advised); 3.  The permanence of the information (in cyberspace, nothing ever really dies); and 4. The "blending" of the personal and the public, and the professional (employment) and the personal.  The result is an array of new risks, for all businesses, but perhaps especially for lawyers. 

This all makes sense, Steven, especially as attorneys are already using Websites to coordinate class actions.

Right, the "notice" issues are significant: how do you reach a large class of claimants in a class?  As social media mechanisms become ever-more routinely used for personal (and even business) communications, it may be that "notice" to the class via social media contacts may be accepted by the courts. 

This is an interesting and even creative use of social media to sway opinion. It makes you wonder what social media's impact will have on society at large when advertisers figure out how to utilize it effectively. Advertising on television is already quite persuasive, what about what you could do to influence people on social sites like Twitter or Facebook?

Think of how political campaigns have picked up on the use of social media to "frame" their messages, create "buzz," and gauge reactions of potential voters.  Those same methods (and more) could be used in the context of legal proceedings. 

scbennett: The campaigns used to "float trial balloons" with members of the press in a wink-wink-nudge-nudge game of saying something without saying it. Now they're saying it, and directly to the people. If it goes wrong for them, they can always scapegoat the posters as if they were Indian advertising professionals.

On that basis, one would say the ramifications will be great. There are times when it is not appropiate to comment on an ongoing lawsuit so as tio avoid prejudicing the case. In the age of social media, that won't be possible.  Whilsgt it may be goodtohave that constant buzz politically,itmay not be so good to have that buzz in a legal enviroment as there is a great chance that it will affect the validity of court rulings.