This responds to your inquiry (13-39) asking whether you must, at the request of the defendant and/or, his/her attorney, exercise recusal in a criminal matter because you are "Facebook friends" with the parents or guardians of certain minors who allegedly were affected by the defendant's conduct. Despite the Facebook nomenclature (i.e., the word "friend") used to describe these undefined relationships, you indicate that these parents are mere acquaintances and that you can be fair and impartial. The Committee believes that the mere status of being a "Facebook friend," without more, is an insufficient basis to require recusal. Nor does the Committee believe that a judge's impartiality may reasonably be questioned (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]) or that there is an appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]) based solely on having previously "friended" certain individuals who are now involved in some manner in a pending action. As the Committee noted in Opinion 11-125, interpersonal relationships are varied, fact-dependent, and unique to the individuals involved. Therefore, the Committee can provide only general guidelines to assist judges who ultimately must determine the nature of their own specific relationships with particular individuals and their ethical obligations resulting from those relationships. With respect to social media relationships, the Committee could not "discern anything inherently inappropriate about a judge joining and making use of a social network" (Opinion 08-176). However, the judge "should be mindful of the appearance created when he/she establishes a connection with an attorney or anyone else appearing in the judge's court through a social network. . . [and] must, therefore, consider whether any such online connections, alone or in combination with other facts, rise to the level of a . . . relationship requiring disclosure and/or recusal" (id.). If, after reading Opinions 11-125 and 08-176, you remain confident that your relationship with these parents or guardians is that of a mere "acquaintance" within the meaning of Opinion 11-125, recusal is not required. However, the Committee recommends that you make a record, such as a memorandum to the file, of the basis for your conclusion. This practice, although not mandatory, may be of practical assistance to you if similar circumstances arise in the future or if anyone later questions your decision. Alternatively, If you need further assistance with your inquiry, please feel free to write or call us.

Megan O'Toole Manager, Membership Services New York State Bar Association One Elk Street Albany, NY 12207 e-mail: caps@nysba.org For more information: 518-487-5743

Pro bono services covered by section 118.1(e)(14) are those personally provided without expectation of receiving a fee; services billed to a client but left unpaid are not included and should not be reported. Attorneys "retired" from the practice of law as defined in section 118.1(g), or employed by an organization primarily or substantially engaged in the provision of pro bono legal services, may choose not to report pro bono service or financial contributions.

The NYMUNIBLOG has a nice summary of a recent conference held about lessons learned after Superstorm Sandy. There's an interesting cautionary conclusion about not "fighting the last war," and not just preparing for risks previously experienced, because future storms may not look anything like Sandy. Perhaps not so coincidentally, there's a recent prediction for an above-average hurricane season on the Atlantic coast.

Hon. Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick Hon. Judy Harris Kluger Deborah Liebman

[N]othing can prepare you to hear the story of a woman who survived an attack carried out on a crowd of people in a churchyard by hiding under a pile of dead bodies and pretending to be one of them. Or to hear the story of a woman whose employer promised to smuggle her out of the country, away from the genocide but instead took her money and betrayed her to the killers. She narrowly escaped with her life, and showed me the marks still on her skull where the machete nearly ended her time on this earth. Still mistrustful of the tribunal system, these people and so many more told their stories to me in the hopes it would help someone else and bring justice to other victims. In that way, I was given both the gift of their trust and the opportunity to serve. All of that Emory Buckner would have understood. He would have understood as well the privilege I was given when I was asked to return to the Eastern District. The man who wrote "civil office in time of peace is the greatest honor which can be conferred upon a citizen by his country," . . . understood that when you are at the helm of an office of dedicated public professionals, you are not just running an office, you are shaping a generation. Your obligation is not just to process cases, but to take young lawyers and give them the tools and the understanding to see the whole case and focus not just on winning but on doing the right thing, because that way not only is justice . . . truly served, it is made a part of them.

• Hon. Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick
• Hon. Judy Harris Kluger
• Deborah Liebman