Mark O'Mara's/Defense's Media And Social Network Presence

[elementary]

I thought I'd bring this over from the main thread since MOM is planning on a huge presence on social network and in the media.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

honest to goodness!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: wherever they send me
Posts: 9,812


Remember when everyone hated Mark NeJame and swore up and down about how unethical he was?

I do. LOL.

They were wrong then too. :D O'Mara's peer-reviewed ethical rating is AV.

http://www.martindale.com/Results.as...rlando%2C%20fl

Quote:
Name: Mark M. O'Mara
Peer Review Rated
Client Review Rated
Documents
Job Title: Member
Organization: Mark M. O'Mara, P.A.
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense; White Collar Crime; Driving While Intoxicated; Family Law; Divorce; Traffic Violations; Misdemeanors; Child Custody; Support
Office: Orlando, Florida (Orange Co.)
Peer Review Rating: AV® Preeminent™ 5.0 out of 5
Client Review Rating: Preeminent 5.0 out of 5
http://www.martindale.com/Results.as...rlando%2C%20fl
Quote:
Name: Mark E. NeJame
Peer Review Rated
Client Review Rated
Documents
Job Title: Member
Organization: Nejame, Lafay, Jancha, Barker, Joshi, & Moreno, P.A.
Practice Areas: Criminal Law; Personal Injury; Commercial Litigation; Civil Litigation; Immigration Law
Office: Orlando, Florida (Orange Co.)
Peer Review Rating: AV® Preeminent™ 5.0 out of 5
Client Review Rating: Preeminent 5.0 out of 5
:cow:

**************************

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r-vi...22/detail.html

I haven't seen MOM's legal site referenced here yet. This site is not a FB site. This site will not be the donation site - planned to be kept separately at gzdefensefund.

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/

Quote:
Why Social Media for George Zimmerman?

on 28 April 2012.

We understand that it is unusual for a legal defense to maintain a social media presence on behalf of a defendant, but we also acknowledge that this is a very unusual case. Here are our justifications for our online efforts, and some guidelines we have put in place to help you understand what you can expect. We do understand and acknowledge the criticism that this is an opportunistic move using the event of a tragedy for personal or firm gain. Rest assured, that if the controversy surrounding this matter subsided tomorrow, so would our efforts to address the perceived problems the way we feel is necessary.

First, we contend that social media in this day and age cannot be ignored. It is now a critical part of presidential politics, it has been part of revolutions in the Middle East, and it is going to be an unavoidable part of high-profile legal cases, just as traditional media has been and continues to be. We feel it would be irresponsible to ignore the robust online conversation, and we feel equally as strong about establishing a professional, responsible, and ethical approach to new media.
FWIW, At first I thought that MOM's offices had not yet found the GZ presence on WS's site. Now I'm wondering. ;)


To the mods:
Does it make sense to start a thread for discussing MOM's posts at gzlegalcase.com ??

[KateNY]

re Facebook Page Set up by MO'M

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/0...-salvo-in.html

O’Mara hired Shawn Vincent of Orlando’s Digital Marketing Revolution to manage a Facebook page as well.

< >
Jayne Navarre, a South Florida consultant who devises social media strategies for lawyers, said O’Mara’s use of social media will “almost certainly” taint a jury pool and compromise Zimmerman’s shot at a fair trial. She said O’Mara also may be violating American Bar Association rules that prohibit a lawyer from helping third parties make prohibited extrajudicial comments.

While use of social media has risen exponentially in the legal field, “what we have not seen is a criminal-defense attorney host social media channels on behalf of their client,” Navarre said. “I would not be surprised to learn that members of the Bar are shocked and even disgusted.”

Under American Bar Association rules, a lawyer can speak publicly on a case as long as it does not prejudice a potential jury. The association is revamping its rules to address social media, she said.

Lawyers usually use social media to advertise, educate, network or recruit employees, she said. Some lawyers and judges have been sanctioned for inappropriate use of social media.

Not sure how I feel about that Facebook page, and if it would taint a jury pool. DO want to ensure the man gets a fair trial.

Could wind up as an appeal issue? ( if found guilty)

:crystalball:

[katydid23]

I think O/Mara is in a very unique situation. THis trial would not be happening the way it is now unfolding if it were not for the massive media campaign rolled out by the Martin family and their high profile civil rights attorney and his PR team.

So there was already a huge wave of national media AGAINST his client when O'Mara took over. And now there are the 7 yr old MYspaces of GZ hitting the internet.

So imo, O'Mara wouldn't be doing his job if her didn't try to put some things to try and balance it somewhat that he has control over.

Baez used the social networks to fashion himself a defense to set Casey free. And he has been going to legal conventions and 'lecturing' about the new wave of social media and it's effect upon jury trials. Looks like O'Mara has his ear to the ground.

[imamaze]

http://cfnews13.com/content/news/cfn...ebsite_ra.html
George Zimmerman website crossing the line?
Legal experts say the website set up for the case against George Zimmerman is in a gray legal area, and close to crossing ethical lines set by the Florida Bar.

Attorney Joy Ragan from the Ragan Law Firm said there will likely be kickback from legal community in response to the Mark O’Mara operated gzlegalcase.com.

“There will be some complaints to the bar by somebody,” Ragan said.
More...

[tehcloser]

Originally Posted by imamaze

http://cfnews13.com/content/news/cfn...ebsite_ra.html
George Zimmerman website crossing the line?
Legal experts say the website set up for the case against George Zimmerman is in a gray legal area, and close to crossing ethical lines set by the Florida Bar.

Attorney Joy Ragan from the Ragan Law Firm said there will likely be kickback from legal community in response to the Mark O’Mara operated gzlegalcase.com.

“There will be some complaints to the bar by somebody,” Ragan said.
More...

See it's stuf like this I don't understand. MOM is clearly about to cross a line. How can one be so ethical yet, be close to crossing "ethical lines set by the Florida Bar"?

[imamaze]

Originally Posted by tehcloser

See it's stuf like this I don't understand. MOM is clearly about to cross a line. How can one be so ethical yet, be close to crossing "ethical lines set by the Florida Bar"?

I'm not sure how I feel about it. I mean its something so new imo. So far what he has on the website I don't see anything wrong or crossing any ethical lines. I'm not quite sure what they are going to use it for though.

Ima

[stilettos]

Originally Posted by tehcloser

See it's stuf like this I don't understand. MOM is clearly about to cross a line. How can one be so ethical yet, be close to crossing "ethical lines set by the Florida Bar"?

He is going to get caught up in this...mark my words.

[belle3]

http://cfnews13.com/content/news/cfn...ebsite_ra.html

However, he also states that one of the “seven” objectives of the website are to prevent miseducation and false facts to the public.

“Well the problem is you can’t do both, you can’t not talk about the facts of the case and prevent the miseducation of the public on the facts of the case, so I think inherently there is a problem with the website,” said Ragan.

I am not so sure about this website. Would this fall under the need for a gag order???

[lauriej]

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/

Contents of George Zimmerman's Abandoned Myspace Page Scrutinized
on 02 May 2012

A Myspace page that belonged to George Zimmerman in 2005 has been brought to light, and some of the contents of his page have been scrutinized in a Miami Herald article entitled “George Zimmerman’s crude Myspace page from 2005 uncovered.” The O’Mara Law Group has confirmed this this page did belong to Mr. Zimmerman, though it was hacked into, and George abandoned it. The identified posts were his.

We believe that inviting public scrutiny of the contents of this social media account invites scrutiny of the social media accounts of all parties involved

While these social media accounts may be public, we will not comment on them publicly, as they may be part of the evidence produced at trial.

[lauriej]

Originally Posted by tehcloser

See it's stuf like this I don't understand. MOM is clearly about to cross a line. How can one be so ethical yet, be close to crossing "ethical lines set by the Florida Bar"?

--also from the article posted..
http://cfnews13.com/content/news/cfn...ebsite_ra.html

The issue of raising money for Zimmerman through the website raised red flags for Ragan as well.

The Bar rules state an attorney cannot make money off a criminal enterprise.

The website makes it clear money donated will pay for “more” than just attorney fees.

“So I think it’s a real problem for Mr. O’Mara to also use these funds to pay for the living expense of Mr. Zimmerman,” said Ragan.

[KateNY]

Originally Posted by lauriej

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/

Contents of George Zimmerman's Abandoned Myspace Page Scrutinized
on 02 May 2012

We believe that inviting public scrutiny of the contents of this social media account invites scrutiny of the social media accounts of all parties involved

BBM..



Battle of The Twitter Tweets coming to a trial near you


:what:

[Emma Peel]

Originally Posted by KateNY

BBM..



Battle of The Twitter Tweets coming to a trial near you


:what:

BINGO.

LOL.

"Hmmmmm... Why didn't MOM clean up those old websites of GZ's sooner?"

Oops, there goes that fox again. :runaway:

[belle3]

Originally Posted by Emma Peel

BINGO.

LOL.

"Hmmmmm... Why didn't MOM clean up those old websites of GZ's sooner?"

Oops, there goes that fox again. :runaway:

Quote:
We believe that inviting public scrutiny of the contents of this social media account invites scrutiny of the social media accounts of all parties involved


hmmmm???? bbm

[lauriej]

Originally Posted by belle3

Quote:
We believe that inviting public scrutiny of the contents of this social media account invites scrutiny of the social media accounts of all parties involved


hmmmm???? bbm

--so, what omara would think is fair, is for people to "scrutinize" the social media accounts of the victim also...

--complete w/ verifiable *links*, quotes ( while a staffer prints them off and compiles them all neatly in a folder labelled defense #X...)

[elementary]

Originally Posted by belle3

Quote:
We believe that inviting public scrutiny of the contents of this social media account invites scrutiny of the social media accounts of all parties involved


hmmmm???? bbm

....And therefore justifies the presence of this site as well as encourages the scrutiny of the victim and witnesses. What's good for the goose, etc... Crazy like a fox, as Emma Peel has pointed out.

I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't have an Amy Singer clone, or even AS consulting in order to manipulate public opinion.

[elementary]

Originally Posted by KateNY

re Facebook Page Set up by MO'M

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/0...-salvo-in.html





Not sure how I feel about that Facebook page, and if it would taint a jury pool. DO want to ensure the man gets a fair trial.

Could wind up as an appeal issue? ( if found guilty)

:crystalball:

If the criteria for being on a jury is being deaf, dumb and blind to the news, then MOM's site is making it that much harder to find someone untainted. So, IMO he's ensuring that not only could GZ not get a fair trial, but that they would have to move it out of the country. For him to be disseminating "information" and correcting information is to manipulate this medium and the media at large, IMO. He's making things worse and guaranteed, he will polarise the public even further. It's beyond unethical, IMO. Rather than defend his client, he's proclaimed an all out war on truth and justice. This is bigger than GZ now and I think GZ is now merely a pawn in something I just don't understand. Perhaps MOM is not greedy for money, but it seems that his ego is monumental. And that's my two cents.

Meanwhile, the prosecution can't say a word.

It seems that 'ethics' in lawyering is relative.

[Nova]

Originally Posted by imamaze

I'm not sure how I feel about it. I mean its something so new imo. So far what he has on the website I don't see anything wrong or crossing any ethical lines. I'm not quite sure what they are going to use it for though.

Ima

I think it's a good thing if the Florida Bar has plans to discuss the ethical use of social media.

But at first glance, why is using FB different from appearing on television?

[Nova]

Originally Posted by tehcloser

See it's stuf like this I don't understand. MOM is clearly about to cross a line. How can one be so ethical yet, be close to crossing "ethical lines set by the Florida Bar"?

How is it "clearly" crossing a line except that social media is a new area?

One might well argue that an ethical defense attorney has an obligation to keep up with the times. As Websleuths demonstrates, it's not as if the case isn't already being discussed on the internet.

[elementary]

Originally Posted by Nova

I think it's a good thing if the Florida Bar has plans to discuss the ethical use of social media.

But at first glance, why is using FB different from appearing on television?

It is very different. FB is far reaching compared to TV and engages the reader in a dialogue; it is interactive. Far reaching in that 'likes' further propel the dissemination of the site, as do the 'friends' connections; it's meant to go viral. And it's also a convenient spot to test the waters, experiment, and keep one's finger on the pulse of opinion, and then steer it in any direction necessary. One can also manipulate the numbers and delete the voices of the dissenters. It lulls people into believing they have a voice and influence. In this case it is also meant to be fodder for social engineering, the gathering of information; a site purportedly about law, and justice and truth, is not intended to serve the country or the people or serve justice. It is self-serving.

It could also be dangerous, because what if someone comes across your opinions and doesn't like what you've written? This is a volatile subject. Many people have a lot of their info on FB. They could in effect track you down and do real harm. Not to mention that FB has sold info to third parties in the past.

Perhaps you can flesh out why it is not any different from TV?

[elementary]

Originally Posted by Nova

How is it "clearly" crossing a line except that social media is a new area?

One might well argue that an ethical defense attorney has an obligation to keep up with the times. As Websleuths demonstrates, it's not as if the case isn't already being discussed on the internet.

How does "keeping up with the times" have anything to do with ethics?

[Donjeta]

Originally Posted by Nova

I think it's a good thing if the Florida Bar has plans to discuss the ethical use of social media.

But at first glance, why is using FB different from appearing on television?

Too much TV exposure may be a bad thing too sometimes.

The comments may be a problematic aspect on FB. If you set up a page where people can comment without moderation the people may post something that is not true or is otherwise offensive or beyond the pale and since it's your page it might be interpreted that you endorse the comments. Too much moderation could be bad for the fairness if it skews the discussion in a particular direction and bad for the client if it tips your hand prematurely.

[tehcloser]

Originally Posted by Nova

How is it "clearly" crossing a line except that social media is a new area?

One might well argue that an ethical defense attorney has an obligation to keep up with the times. As Websleuths demonstrates, it's not as if the case isn't already being discussed on the internet.

Oh heck because the article that was posted said so........but then again, you know I have some deep, dark, hinky reason for my blind hatred of defense attorneys....so, just ignore me. :floorlaugh:

[highflyer]

Always follow the money. Somebody has to have some deep pockets to be funding this media relations campaign. It will be interesting to find out where this leads to.

[Nova]

Originally Posted by elementary

It is very different. FB is far reaching compared to TV and engages the reader in a dialogue; it is interactive. Far reaching in that 'likes' further propel the dissemination of the site, as do the 'friends' connections; it's meant to go viral. And it's also a convenient spot to test the waters, experiment, and keep one's finger on the pulse of opinion, and then steer it in any direction necessary. One can also manipulate the numbers and delete the voices of the dissenters. It lulls people into believing they have a voice and influence. In this case it is also meant to be fodder for social engineering, the gathering of information; a site purportedly about law, and justice and truth, is not intended to serve the country or the people or serve justice. It is self-serving.

It could also be dangerous, because what if someone comes across your opinions and doesn't like what you've written? This is a volatile subject. Many people have a lot of their info on FB. They could in effect track you down and do real harm. Not to mention that FB has sold info to third parties in the past.

Perhaps you can flesh out why it is not any different from TV?

BBM: You must live in England. In the United States we have hundreds of channels. NOTHING is more far-reaching than TV.

But I do use Facebook and didn't really need the lecture on how it works. Yes, every new technology has its own features, but long before FB "likes" were broadcast, people called their neighbors on the phone to say, "Turn on, Nancy Grace! She's talking about the Zimmerman case." If you look around here, you'll find posters spreading the word whenever their favorite case is discussed on TV.

Yes, FB is more conveniently interactive than much TV, but that's not to say TV viewers haven't always had ways (phone calls, mail) of interacting with their favorite programs. Some programs (see, again, Nancy Grace) quite encourage viewers to call in and express opinions.

Yes, FB and Twitter may provide prosecutors AND defense counsels with ways to know what potential jurors are thinking. So this is a new facet in the life of a jury consultant. But researching the jury pool has never been against the law or against the canon of judicial ethics. So I don't believe this issue will even be discussed by the Bar.

I said above that I'm glad the Florida Bar is taking up the issue of legal ethics and social media; obviously, the canon of ethics should be revisited as technology changes.

But I was responding to posts that insisted it was OBVIOUS O'Mara has "crossed the line" by using Facebook and Twitter. And so I ask: obvious to whom and in what way? To my eye, he's simply using the resources made available by the modern world.

And let's remember that both sides will be able to ask potential jurors about their use of social media regarding the case during voir dire.

[vlpate]

Originally Posted by tehcloser

See it's stuf like this I don't understand. MOM is clearly about to cross a line. How can one be so ethical yet, be close to crossing "ethical lines set by the Florida Bar"?

Defense attorneys go on television all the time talking about their cases - Tacopina and Jose Baez come quickly to mind. The only difference, IMO, is feedback.