Be careful who you follow on Twitter!

[Darrell KSR]

From this month's Alabama lawyer Magazine...

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170706/965d00d5421e7ed62422ff039d7f425f.jpg

[Darrell KSR]

8.4(g) is a catch-all that says any other conduct that would reflect adversely on someone's ability to practice law. That's an interesting disciplinary action to me. Following porn sites... Hmm...

[PedroDaGr8]

8.4(g) is a catch-all that says any other conduct that would reflect adversely on someone's ability to practice law. That's an interesting disciplinary action to me. Following porn sites... Hmm...
Would there be a first amendment case here?

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[Darrell KSR]

I'm really struggling with this. I think it unwise to do what he did, but who am I to say that reflects on his ability to practice law? Maybe it's a marketing ploy. Marketing himself as hip, or showing he's not afraid of showing who he is, or whatever. Or maybe he represents strip clubs and porn stars, or desires to enter that field.

My guess? The guy lied to the disciplinary committee, and they didn't like it, so they popped him. I wish the guy had just said, "yeah, I follow them. I'm always looking for possible new clients, and/or possible defendants to sue, and thought this could be either."

Just not sure about this.

[CitizenBBN]

Most professions in their licensing has some kind of morals clause. In this case I don't think you could argue that following porn sites is in and of itself an issue b/c let's face it, a lot of people look at porn on the net, but I could see the argument that doing so with the same account used for his practice exposed that behavior in a way that is unseemly.

That's pretty questionable in the sense that we know porn is so widely consumed in this country that acting as if doing so is some kind of morally shocking behavior is just not a fair representation of our real actions, but it is a reflection of our public values that you keep the Playboy in the garage or somewhere, not out on the coffee table.

[KSRBEvans]

Would there be a first amendment case here?

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

I'm not up on 1st Amendment case law, especially as it pertains to bar rules, but previous bar rules on attorney advertising were struck down by the Supremes as 1st Amendment violations many years ago. So there is precedent for that approach.

[Doc]

8.4(g) is a catch-all that says any other conduct that would reflect adversely on someone's ability to practice law. That's an interesting disciplinary action to me. Following porn sites... Hmm...

I heard it does not affect ones ability to be a veterinarian.....so I heard

Here in FL there is a similar regulation for those in the medical field as well. Basically a catch all so that if the DPR (dept of professional regulation) can step outside the box and reprimand as they see fit