Off topic, but ...
This past week, a colleague and I gave a presentation on blogs and blogging to the Halifax Association of Law Librarians. We covered the usual topics, including an overview of some of the good legal blogs out there, RSS, aggregators, etc.
But I also talked about an issue that has been a concern to me since I started this blog but I really haven't heard any discussion of it among the dozens of legal blogs that I follow: conflicts and blogging. Legal ethics say that a lawyer can't reveal the identity of a client or do anything that may be prejudicial to a client, except with the client's consent. See Rule 22 of the Nova Scotia Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct Handbook.
In this blog, I usually post about articles and incidents of interest that have a privacy angle. If I see an article or another blog post that deals with privacy, I'll post a link to it. I hope that this blog is "one stop shopping" for everything of interest related to Canadian privacy law. But it simply can't be. From time to time, a story hits the media that involves a client of my firm. Also, from time to time, I'll get a call from someone in the media asking to comment on a privacy story that involves a client. I always decline to link to the story or to make the comment. Unless I have the client's OK. (Which I've gotten from time to time, particularly if the result of the matter is public knowledge.)
It is a real challenge and something to be very mindful of. I work in a firm with almost 200 lawyers, with six offices in four jurisdictions. We also are Atlantic Canadian counsel to many of the largest companies operating in North America. Our securities group does agency work on behalf of loads of public companies that require registration in Atlantic Canada. If a lawyer in one of our New Brunswick offices does work for the Canadian subsidiary of a huge insurance company, that company is a client and I have to keep my mouth shut. Even if it may be borderline or in a grey area, I have to err on the side of caution.
I would be very interested to hear the thoughts of other legal bloggers out there on this topic. I think this is an important topic that could bear some informed discussion.
I solicited Alan Gahtan's thoughts on this subject, which he has posted on Gahtan's Technology and Internet Law Blog:
"My view is that lawyers who publish, whether through a blog or through more traditional print media, operate under a disability. They must not disclose client confidences and must not advocate a position that is contrary to their client’s interests. The magnitude of the disability is proportionate to the size of the firm that a particular lawyer practices with since conflicts are “shared” among the lawyers of a firm. It is less of a problem when the lawyer’s publishing activities involve ad hoc articles as opposed to the operation of a website or blog that tries to cover all developments in a particular area. I’m not a legal ethics expert but my view is that simply reporting other information that is already public should not create a legal conflict (although I can see that it could create a business conflict with a particular client). However, it does mean that the blogging lawyer will be limited in their ability to comment on a particular news item if such comment would be detrimental to the interest of a client of the firm. It likely also means that any third party comments will also need to be filtered so that they do not contain any content that is detrimental to any such client. "
I like the use of the term that we lawyers are blogging "under a disability." Our hands our tied and our lips are always sealed, but this isn't unique to the blogging environment. Lawyers always have very juicy gossip but have to keep their mouths closed at cocktail parties. Blogging lawyers also have to be mindful not to aliente present and prospective clients with their blog content. I try to be as even-handed and balanced as possible, with the minimum of personal and political opinion (which is distinct from professional opinion).
There have been a number of times when I've had to remain silent when clients have appeared in the news, even though I have no immediate knowledge of the incident (for example, if its US branch is in the news). There have also been cases when the clients have had positive privacy-related publicity, but it is not my place to speak for or about them without permission. But when it does not inovolve a client, I think I am free to link to public information even though my firm has clients in the same industry with similar business issues.
Thanks Alan, Rob, David and DP Thinker for the comments, above and below.