Facebook Service Not Exactly Personal

During a recent bout of boredom, we discovered the Wikipedia page for “Service of Process.”  After reading through the standard fare for manner of service, we came across this interesting tidbit:

Courts in at least two Canadian provincial jurisdictions have allowed for substituted service via Facebook.

Service via Facebook?  Certainly, it can’t be legitimate to write, “You’ve been served,” on someone’s Facebook wall and have that hold up in a court of law.  We thought that this must be a case of a wiki author having fun editing a page to poke fun at Canadians, right?  Wrong, the Court of Quebec did in fact hold back in 2011 that Facebook messaging was an appropriate method for service of process.

In Boivin v. Scott et al., a Canadian plaintiff for whatever reason encountered difficulty serving a Florida resident.  In response, the Quebec court held (via Google Translate, mind you):

The only way for the plaintiff to the defendant to convey the original application is through his Facebook address. Indeed, it is a direct and convenient way to notify the defendant that proceedings are taken against her so she could prepare his defense and to be heard, which meets the main purpose of the service.

The court was certainly correct in that Facebook service would be direct and convenient – at least for the plaintiff.  The defendant gets to finally look forward to a Facebook notification that has nothing to do with Farmville.  Of course, that only applies if the plaintiff served the correct Facebook profile in the first place.

As technologically savvy as we may be, in our opinion, due process should never take a back seat to convenience.  There are reasons why personal service is preferred and that substituted service should only be used as a last resort.  The rules are designed to protect defendants, making sure they are properly notified of suits against them.

Service by Facebook, while convenient for the plaintiff, lacks these safeguards.

Facebook service simply has too many questions.  Here are a few that come to mind:

  • Just because a Facebook profile looks to be that of the defendant, who can guarantee it is?  Facebook contains millions of accounts, many real and many fake.  Serving the Facebook account of “John Doe of Greenville, SC” does not assure that the correct John Doe was actually served.
  • Not that plaintiffs would ever be so sinister, but what prevents a plaintiff from making a Facebook profile for the defendant he wants to serve for the purpose of service?  If you can make a Facebook page for God, making one for the defendant is not outside the realm of possibility. What safeguards exist to guard against such malfeasance?
  • Lastly, even if a person is served to the proper Facebook account, how does one know that the defendant actively uses the account and would find the complaint?  Certainly, there are tons of people with Facebook accounts who haven’t accessed them in years.  The accounts still show as active even though they have not been officially de-activated.  Do we really want to equate Facebook profiles in the same vain as a last known address? Plus, what if the account is active, but the message ends up in the somewhat hidden “Other” mailbox?

With all these questions, service by Facebook is not a process we would feel comfortably advocating.  Unfortunately, however, we think that this may be the wave of the future.  At least one U.S. court has ordered service of process by Facebook message.  We expect many more to come.

Facebook Friendships In Litigation – Exploring Them In Detail

In the past several weeks, we have commented upon two cases involving a Facebook friendship and its effect on pending civil and criminal litigation. One matter involved a family law matter in which a judge was Facebook friends with the daughter of two competing divorce litigants. Another involved a criminal case in which a juror was Facebook friends with a relative of the victim of the homicide being prosecuted. In both of those cases, the appellate courts discussed generally the nature of a Facebook friendship, but they did not probe more deeply into the specifics of the Facebook friendships at issue. Certainly, the trial counsel in the underlying cases could have litigated the nature and depth of the social media connection more deeply (and in fairness, perhaps they did, but such details did not make it into the appellate opinion). This post will offer a few questions that can be asked to probe these issues more deeply.

When did the Facebook friendship come into being? This is an important question because the origin of the Facebook friendship in question is quite relevant. Did it occur years before the trial? Did it occur prior to or during the events being litigated? Was the friendship request instituted because of a familiarity brought about by the events being litigated? Or, did the Facebook friendship predate the events being litigated and its origin have little, if nothing to do with the matter being tried?

How can the Facebook friendship be characterized? Sometimes, judges, as local officials, maintain Facebook profiles, and it may be that throngs of citizens in the community have connected with their local officials via social media. Thus, it may be telling to know how many Facebook friends each party to the friendship has. Are there thousands, or are their dozens? This may make a difference. This is true even if the individuals are not public figures. Do the users accept every friend request they receive, or are they more discriminating? Have they simply connected via a Facebook friendship, or do they utilize that friendship to communicate further? Do they post on each other’s Facebook walls? Do they send private messages? If so, when, and how often? And, of course, have they ever communicated about the subject matter being litigated through social media?

Who instigated the Friendship request? This could also be important. Again, if one of the parties to the friendship is a judge or community figure, it may be that they are inundated with friend request, of which the friendship at issue was once one.  However, it may be that the friendship at issue was borne of a closer connection, and thus, the identity of the instigating party should be determined.

What is being published on the two profiles at issue? To adequately address this inquiry, one would need to know what the parties to the Facebook friendship might have learned from each other during the friendship itself. Are the friends able to see each other’s private profiles (which may not be accessible to members in the general public)? Have either of the parties to the Facebook friendship posted on their profiles about the events being litigated? Might one friend have seen relevant information about the case on another’s profile?

Have the two met in real life? It’s always important to determine if the parties have met IRL or, rather, if the Facebook friendship is evidence of an offline friendship, as well.

Accordingly, these are issues which should be addressed in any such inquiry.

Facebook, Subpoenas, and Brady v. Maryland in Texas

You know how we here at Abnormal Use adore court opinions and social media.  Accordingly, we couldn’t resist sharing this very recent Texas state court appellate opinion, arising from a forgery conviction, in which the issues at hand were Brady v. Maryland and Facebook.

The opinion in question is Futch v. State, No. 10-11-00283-CR (Tex. App. – Waco July 18, 2013, no pet. h.) [PDF].

Apparently, just before opening statements, the following lenghthy exchange took place (as set forth in the opinion):

[Defense Counsel]: Yes. Judge, a few minutes ago [Prosecutor] made a Brady type disclosure to me. I don’t want to run the risk of misstating what he told me.

If you’ll tell the judge.

[Prosecutor]: I’ll do it. Judge, there was one witness that was on our subpoena list. Her name is Sarah Parrish. She drifts. She’s very difficult to find. She’s not stable. The subpoena on her actually was never served. It went to Coryell County with her last known address, and they told us—they sent it back, “Unable to serve subpoena.” She showed up today. Her remark to me was much like it was to the officers the night of this – when the defendant was arrested, that he had permission from the check holder. She, technically, was never served by subpoena. I saw her at lunch and I talked with her at lunch, and she said, “Are you going to need me right now?” I said, “no,” and she said, “Could I go get lunch and then come right back or be back by 1:30?” I said, “sure,” because I don’t really have any desire to call her to the stand. As soon as I saw [Defense Counsel] after that, I let him know what she had said, and that’s the gist of it. I mean, quite honestly, I find her completely untruthful, and I don’t see any need to call her. That’s why – in the interest of fairness and disclosure, I wanted to give him everything we had on that. Today is the first chance I’ve ever had to talk to her, at lunch.

THE COURT: She never actually got served with the subpoena?

[Prosecutor]: No. She just showed up today, because the way the officer –the only way the officer – she has no phone number, she has no permanent address that we can find her at, and either one of the deputies or investigators from Coryell County or another police officer – I’m not sure –sent her a Facebook message. That’s what her mom said was the only way to get in touch with her was to send her a Facebook message and wait. They didn’t know if they would have her here in time or not. That’s what they were told. They sent her a Facebook message, and she told me she got it, I guess, this morning, and she showed up.

THE COURT: Modern culture, nothing like it.

[Defense Counsel]: Judge, for the record, I’ve been looking for her, myself, for two months. I turned every rock I could, including using the Facebook …. We have not had any response at all. Now, this is a very crucial element of the offense, of course. We don’t have the witness. We don’t have any means to get her.

[Prosecutor]: She said – the best I can say is she said she’d be back at our office at 1:30, and we were over here before 1:30, and I said I’d come back for her if we needed her.

THE COURT: [Defense Counsel], did the defense issue a subpoena for her also?

[Defense Counsel]: No. I didn’t know where to issue it, Judge. I didn’t know where to send it.

THE COURT: So what is it you’re suggesting that I do about it?

[Defense Counsel]: Well, I want to get this crucial piece of evidence before the jury. I mean, it’s a crucial part of their case. I don’t want to break any rules of decorum or anything like that, Judge, but I want to get some guidance from the Court about how to do it.

THE COURT: Well, my suggestion is to find the witness.

[Defense Counsel]: I don’t know where to look.

THE COURT: I don’t either.

[Prosecutor]: I mean, she may be back at our office. Like I said, we left at 1:15.

[Defense Counsel]: Well, you know, I can’t get in the DA’s office without an escort, Judge.

THE COURT: Find out if she’s back in you-all’s office. If she is, serve her with the subpoena.

[Prosecutor]: Okay.

[Prosecutor # 2]: We don’t have a subpoena for her anymore. Right?

[Prosecutor]: It came back not returned. I don’t have another one to hand her now. It has come back unable to locate.

THE COURT: Where is the original subpoena?

[Prosecutor]: To be honest, I don’t know. I handed it to my investigator. It was sent to Coryell County.

[Prosecutor # 2]: It was sent to Coryell County, and they sent the return back.

THE COURT: Well, if she’s over there and she comes to your office, have her brought over here. Escort her with an officer, if you have to, and I’ll talk with her.

[Prosecutor # 2]: Okay.

[Prosecutor]: Do you want me to go look right now before we get going?

THE COURT: You can call. I want to get the jury in here.

[Prosecutor]: Okay.

On appeal, Futch contended “that the State’s suppression of evidence favorable to his defense violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Article 1, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution” and that the State withheld oral testimony in violation of [Brady] by dismissing a witness who had voluntarily come to court to testify for the State. However, the court of appeals found that Futch did not preserve the issue for review.  Specifically, the court held that Futch’s attorney’s generalized reference to a “Brady type disclosure” and failure to object or otherwise move for a continuance waived the complaint. Now, as a civil litigation blog, we are more interested in the social media component of this case than the criminal procedure angles. However, we all must serve subpoenas, and we all face encountered difficult to locate witnesses whose online presence may be the only evidence of their whereabouts. Accordingly, FYI.

Illinois Federal Court Compels Production of Plaintiffs’ Facebook Data

From a very recent court opinion: “Postings on Facebook and other social media present a unique challenge for courts, due to their relative novelty and their ability to be shared by or with someone besides the original poster. Nonetheless, a court may compel production of a party’s Facebook information if the party seeking disclosure makes a threshold relevance showing.”

You think? Well, sometimes, but not always. Traditional discovery rules and jurisprudence remains helpful in such inquiries.

The quote above is from Higgins v. Koch Development Corp.,  No. 3:11–CV–81–RLY–WGH (S.D. Ind. July 5, 2013).

Note: That opinion was released on July 5, which was a Friday, if you recall.  Someone didn’t take a three day weekend, apparently.

The fact of the case were these: In 2009, the Plaintiff’s visited a water amusement park.  One of the attractions at the park, the “Bahari River,” had  “muratic acid and liquid bleach filtered into the water by a filter pump that was connected to a breaker.”  The Plaintiffs alleged that they suffered toxic chemical injuries and pulmonary problems as a result of improper maintenance of the filters and pumps.

At their depositions, the Plaintiffs confirmed the existence of their Facebook pages (of which defense counsel was no doubt previously aware).  Interestingly, the Plaintiffs agreed to capture and preserve their complete profile history using the “Download Your Information” function (although they apparently did not produce this information to the defense, which prompted a motion to compel).  The opinion does not reveal when they actually preserved the information – whether it be in the deposition room itself or sometime later. In refusing to produce the Facebook data, the Plaintiffs invoked the traditional arguments (overbreadth, irrelevance) but also argued that the production of the data would violate the privacy rights of non-parties whose images became part of the Plaintiffs’ profiles via tagging.

The court quickly disposed of the relevance objection, noting that the specific claims made by the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit made the information contained on their social media profiles relevant indeed.  As the court observed, “Koch claims that [Plaintiffs'] Facebook content may reveal relevant information as to the extent their injuries have impacted their enjoyment of life, ability to engage in outdoor activities, and employment, along with their claims regarding permanent injuries, lack of pre-existing symptoms, and impairment of future earnings capacity. Since the extent of [Plaintiffs'] losses in these areas directly impacts the appropriate damages award, the court finds this information relevant.” No surprise there, especially if the Plaintiffs used Facebook as much as the opinion suggested they do.

Sophisticated as to Facebook’s privacy settings, the Plaintiffs also claimed the request violated their privacy rights (as they had made their profiles as private as Facebook allows them to be).  This is argument, of course, is particularly weak, as Plaintiffs clearly put their lifestyles at issue in bringing the suit and alleging those damages, and thus, the mere fact that they have shielded relevant data using Facebook’s privacy settings does not relieve them of an obligation to produce relevant information.  In rejecting Plaintiffs’ argument on these grounds, the court noted that Plaintiffs “cite[d] no cases supporting the proposition that setting a Facebook profile to ‘private’ entitles a person to a greater expectation of privacy or can act as a shield to discovery.”

This, of course, leaves us with the most interesting argument Plaintiffs made: that the request violated the privacy of non-parties. You’ve got to give the Plaintiffs’ lawyers points for creativity on that one. Essentially, Plaintiffs argued that their friends – other Facebook users – posted comments on Plaintiffs’ Facebook walls or appeared on Plaintiffs’ Facebook timeline by being tagged in photographs or posts in which Plaintiffs were also tagged.  Unpersuaded, the court characterized this argument as “unfounded,” citing another court which had already reached the conclusion that tagged photographs are discoverable if relevant because “once the plaintiff was tagged in the photos, they became in the plaintiff’s “possession, custody, or control.”

Clearly, this is the right result.  In light of the resistance the Plaintiffs exhibited in producing these profiles, we suspect there is some good impeachment available for the defense to find.

“Who is a member of the press?”

The Third Circuit, in January of 2013, said something that most folks were saying many years before:

More recently, membership in the Fourth Estate has been democratized. Access to blogs, smartphones, and an extensive network of social media sites (not the least of which are Twitter and Facebook) have transformed all of us into potential members of the media.

PG Pub. Co. v. Aichele, 705 F.3d 91 (3d Cir. 2013).

We’re late to this case, which was published in January, more than six months ago. But what’s interesting about this remark, which appears in footnote 24 of the opinion, is that the court immediately backs away from the principle due to the specific facts of the case.

You see, in this case, the court was called upon “to decide whether a state statute restricting access to a polling place infringes on the media’s First Amendment right to gather news.” Obviously, part of that inquiry hinged upon who was the media. As the court itself asked: “Who is a member of the press? Even if we were inclined to find a special First Amendment right for the press in this case (which we explicitly refuse to do), the class of persons to whom such a right is applicable is almost boundless.”

So, the remainder of footnote 24:  “While in almost any other situation this would be a boon to a free and democratic society, in the context of the voting process, the confusion and chaos that would result from a potentially limitless number of reporters in a polling place would work the opposite effect, potentially creating confusion, frustration, and delay. This is to say nothing of our earlier holding that the rights of access for the press and public are co-extensive. In this situation, anyone could record in the polling place if the First Amendment protected the right of access thereto.” (Emphasis in original).

How about that?

Court Finds Juror’s Facebook Friendship With Murder Victim’s Spouse Not Grounds For Disqualification

As you know, we often write about social media and the law, so we simply must direct your attention to last week’s McGaha v. Commonwealth, — S.W.3d —- (Ky. June 20, 2013), in which the appellant, convicted of murder, unsuccessfully argued that he was entitled to a new trial because one of the jurors failed to disclose that she was Facebook friends with the victim’s wife. Wow.

Apparently, the juror – identified in the opinion as “Juror 234″ was questioned during voir dire about her relationship with anyone involved in the case.  She admitted during questioning by the trial court that she knew “some of the [the victim's] family, not close but I do know them.”  She described the relationship as “casual” and noted that she worked with the victim’s nephew.

Sometime after the trial, the Appellant’s lawyers discovered that Juror 234 was one of the victim’s wife’s Facebook friends.  (We wonder if his counsel investigated all of the juror’s social media presence.). After learning of the social media link, the Appellant sought a new trial based upon those grounds, a request which the trial court denied.

Unimpressed with the argument, the Kentucky Supreme Court parsed Juror 234′s answers to the voir dire questions, noting that although they were “succinct” she was never directly asked about any social media relationships.  However, the best part of the opinion comes when the Kentucky Supreme Court addresses the issue of how meaningful a Facebook friendship really is:

It is now common knowledge that merely being friends on Facebook does not, per se, establish a close relationship from which bias or partiality on the part of a juror may reasonably be presumed. This principle is well illustrated in this case. Here, an attachment to the supplemental motion for a new trial that Appellant filed with the trial court discloses that Juror 234 had, at the time of the trial, 629 “friends” on Facebook. She could not possibly have had a disqualifying relationship with each one of them. As we held in Sluss, “ ‘[F]riendships’ on Facebook and other similar social networking websites do not necessarily carry the same weight as true friendships or relationships in the community, which are generally the concern during voir dire.” Therefore, no presumption arises about the nature of the relationship between a juror and another person with an interest in the litigation simply from their status as Facebook friends.

So there you have it.  The appellant could not meet “the heavy burden” for challenging the verdict.  Strangely, no one challenged her for cause on the grounds that she casually knew – and worked with – the victim’s family in the real world. Oh, well.

Ryan Steans: A Decade of Blogging

Congratulations are in order.  Friend of the blog, Ryan Steans, himself a long-time pop culture blogger, recently celebrated a memorable anniversary: his tenth year as a blogger.  Steans, who blogged first at a site called The League of Melbotis, and then at a sequel blog of sorts named The Signal Watch, deserves much praise for reaching this anniversary.  Long-time bloggers like Steans, and of course, Walter Olson of the Overlawyered legal blog, have dedicated substantial amounts of time to their websites and blogs. To reach ten years, well, that’s a lot of sweat equity.

We here at Abnormal Use, a baby in the legal blogosphere at only three years old, certainly understand the commitment required to maintain such an enterprise.  However, the diligence and discipline needed to maintain a blog for more than ten years – like Steans and Olson have done – is quite a feat, no matter the topic.  Accordingly, we applaud Steans upon reaching this milestone.

Steans is a long-time friend and former college classmate.  His blog typically centers around popular culture and events from his daily life.  His posts are often much longer than those you see here on Abnormal Use, and although he does not post every day, he posts often enough to suggest that it is, indeed, a full-time job for him.

What is interesting about his site is the manner in which he has created a community of readers.  That is quite an accomplishment, as many blogs come and go, live, and then die, without attracting much of a readership.  Steans, in the manner in which he writes his site, offers shout-outs to readers and encourages conversation.  Surprisingly, readers of his site – who had no previous connection to each other – have met and become friends after becoming initially acquainted on Steans’ site.  That sense of community, in part, is what has allowed Ryan’s blog to endure as long as it has.

We here at Abnormal Use have taken several lessons from Ryan and his long-time blogging experience.  We here try to foster a community of readers, both by adopting an informal style of sorts but also by utilizing social media in such a way to prompt interaction with our readers.  We are still working on that, and like any blog, this is still a work in progress, even three years in.

To date, we here at Abnormal Use have authored almost 900 posts.  We look back on that with some level of pride, and occasionally, we will peruse some of our favorites years after they were published.  In his own posts observing his milestone, Ryan remarks that he has authored “around 5,000 posts.”  There is something existential in his account of his site’s first decade, as he pauses to reflect upon some of the lessons he has learned in maintaining the site from his late twenties to his late thirties.

We congratulate him on this milestone.

Digital Etiquette v. Documenting The File

Here at Abnormal Use, we are all about online culture. Accordingly, we must comment upon a recent New York Times blog post by Nick Bilton entitled “Disruptions:  Digital Era Redefining Etiquette.”  Brought to our attention by a Twitter user, the article posits that the “worst offenders of all” are “those who leave a voicemail message and then email to tell you they left a voicemail message.” It’s true that few still listen to voicemail messages.  This trend likely frustrates many parents leaving messages for their children (as Bilton notes).

However, in litigation, it may actually be advisable to send a follow-up email after leaving someone a voicemail, particularly if that person is, intentionally or otherwise, making themselves overly difficult to reach. There are those with whom a lawyer must communicate on a case who do not often wish to return calls.  Perhaps it is an opponent who has failed to timely respond to discovery responses.  Perhaps it is a third party whose documents you have subpoenaed.  Perhaps it is a witness who is reluctant to appear for a deposition.  Perhaps it is an opposing counsel who simply has other priorities than the case at issue. Whatever the case, simply leaving voicemails, inevitably lost in the void, does not preserve one’s ability to argue later that one attempted to communicate with an individual.  Assume that one must later rely upon evidence that one attempted to reach out and communicate with such a person, whether it be in a motion to compel or otherwise.  Oftentimes, memorializing the fact that one left a message, particularly if it was ultimately unreturned, creates a record both of attempts to communicate and the recipient’s failure to respond.

Further, you may not initially suspect when you may need to later rely upon such evidence.  Occasionally, unforeseen issues surface, and you, the litigator, will be pleased that you created such a record of communications and attempts which you can later rely upon.

So there.

(Hat tip: Garance Franke-Ruta).

Speaking of Social Media Discovery, A New Texas Case On Just That

We must direct your attention to the brand new opinion in In re Christus Health Southeast Texas, No. 09–12–00538–CV (Tex. App. – Beaumont March 28, 2013, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) [PDF], in which the propriety of Facebook discovery is explored. This suit in question is a wrongful death and survival action arising from a 2009 cardiac catheterization.  The Plaintiffs’ decedent died the day after the procedure. Two requests for production were at issue in the mandamus proceeding, although we’re chiefly concerned with the second one, which asked the Plaintiffs “to produce copies of any postings pertaining to Arthur or Arthur’s death on any social media site.”

The court described the Plaintiffs’ objection to the social media discovery request as follows:

They also objected to Christus’s request for copies of postings on any social media sites, claiming the request was “an invasion of privacy and any such information would be unreliable and constitute hearsay and a fishing expedition and this request is meant for the purpose of harassment.” We note that the Lowes presented no evidence the discovery requests at issue in this proceeding were burdensome, asserted no claim that the information sought to be discovered was privileged, nor did they provide the trial court with a privilege log.

The defense filed a motion to compel, which was denied. Accordingly, the defense then sought a writ of mandamus.

In denying the defendant’s petition for writ of mandamus, the court noted:

The other request at issue in this mandamus proceeding asked the Lowes to produce “[p]hotocopies of postings by any plaintiff pertaining to Arthur Lowe or his death on Facebook or any other social media site.” The Lowes objected that “[s]uch request is an invasion of privacy and any such information would be unreliable and constitute hearsay and a fishing expedition and this request is meant for the purpose of harassment.”

With respect to request for copies of posts regarding Arthur before he died, the request is not limited in time. While the time period of relevant discovery while Arthur was alive may be broad, it is not unlimited. “Discovery orders requiring document production from an unreasonably long time period … are impermissibly overbroad.” While one of the plaintiffs indicated in her deposition that she had placed posts about Arthur on a social media site, the request at issue in this proceeding was not limited to those posts, nor was it limited to the period after Arthur’s death. While the Lowes are seeking damages for their mental anguish, and the statements the Lowes made about Arthur’s death are within the general scope of discovery, the Lowes did not establish that they had an expectation of privacy in their statements on social media sites. Nevertheless, a request without a time limit for posts is overly broad on its face. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the request for posts because it was unlimited in time.

(citations omitted).

And there you go. This case suggests that social media discovery is no longer a novelty and that requests direct to social media profiles are just like any other such requests.

That’s probably a good thing.

The North Carolina Legal Geek Meetups

Not too long ago, friend of the blog, Erik Mazzone of the North Carolina Law Blog, put together what he called a Legal Geek Meetup here in Charlotte.  This event was officially sponsored by the North Carolina Bar Association’s Law Practice Management Section (of which Mazzone is director). Assisting in the arrangements were two local Charlotte lawyers, myself and Ketan Soni.  (You didn’t think they would have a legal geek meeting in Charlotte without having us involved, did you?) The purpose of the first such event was to bring together like-minded young lawyers with an interest in social media and technology.  Here is the official description of the series of events:

Legal Geek events are designed to help lawyers and legal professionals interested in practice management and technology learn from each other. Each meetup focuses on a different topic, and may occasionally involve short presentations. While offered primarily to NCBA members, all local legal professionals are welcome to attend. There is no cost to attend these events.

The event was a success. Held at Charlotte’s new Heist Brewery, the meetup attracted at least 20 or so young lawyers.  (Even fabled North Carolina law blogger Lee S. Rosen made an appearance.). It was a fine – and low pressure – networking event (and by its very nature, it did not include a formal presentation or CLE credit).  Many, but not all, of the discussions had by the participants centered around tech or tech culture: Twitter, blogs, and using same to advance one’s practice. Basically, it was a just a fun get together for folks unafraid to refer to themselves as “legal geeks.”

There are upcoming events in Raleigh/Durham (April 11), Fayetteville (May 14), and, of course, Asheville (June 19).

If you’re interested in becoming a part of the events, see here.