Some Election Day Thoughts
“Let’s get tough on crime!” We continue to hear this in political campaigns. However, how often do we think about what this really means? In the Anne Arundel County political race for Prosecutor, the challenger complained that a 55 year sentence was too lenient. A 55 year sentence would mean that the defendant in that case would be roughly eighty four years old at the time of his release. Too lenient?
From a pure economic viewpoint, lengthy prison sentences make no sense. “[America’s]… imprisoned population, at 2.3m, exceeds that of 15 of its states. No other rich country is nearly as punitive as the Land of the Free. The rate of incarceration is a fifth of America’s level in Britain, a ninth in Germany and a twelfth in Japan.” (The Economist, July 22, 2010 http://www.economist.com/node/16640389). Here in Maryland, the latest report available on the Department of Corrections website celebrates a reduction in correctional officer overtime. The overtime alone for fiscal year 2009 is listed at $41,979,780! (http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/DPSCS-SecretaryReport-2009.pdf)

From a justice viewpoint, caging folks for years is hardly a fair way of dealing with crime. For those of us that do this work for a living, we know that lengthy incarceration just makes things worse. Criminal defense lawyers will often refer to jails and prisons as “Gladiator Schools” – a place for our clients to learn more about crime.

I visited my local library last week. I walked past an onslaught of political signs during the early voting process. After I entered, I looked upon the shelves of magazines and one after another spot had a sign in the place where the magazine used to be. It explained that due to the budget cuts, the library could no longer afford to have these magazines. I used to be able to take my kids to the library on a Sunday. Not anymore. We do not have unlimited state and federal budgets. We need to not be afraid to speak up. After the election dust settles, please call, write and e-mail your representatives and tell them to stop wasting money on mass incarceration.

Want To Be Happy – Shun BigLaw

Interesting article from the ABA this morning, but no big surprise for those in the “biz.” The legal culture is rife with pscological pitfalls, inconsistencies, etc., but one constant is that all the young lawyers going to BigLaw (i.e., the cows in line to become hamburger) pretty much know what they’re getting themselves into. It’s a sensible trade of income security for freedom, but for happiness? Being at the game of life and law for a while, it’s hard to see anything in the law that makes it worth it, but you decide.

Aiming for BigLaw? You May Want a Different Target, Happiness Researcher Says

Jun 30, 2010 5:29 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Positive psychology expert and lawyer Dan Bowling has a hypothesis: Happiness among law students can’t be explained by who will graduate with a high-paying job or who will earn a degree without a mountain of debt.

Indeed, Bowling says, a lot of evidence suggests that the least happy lawyers are associates in big law firms making a lot of money, although there’s no “gold standard” study of the issue.

Bowling believes that the law students with the best sense of well-being understand their own personalities and character strengths and pursue careers that will tap those strengths.

He’ll get a chance to test his hypothesis in a study beginning this fall of incoming law students at a top 20 law school. He can’t disclose the name, but it’s not Duke, where he is a senior lecturing fellow teaching courses in labor law and seminars on law and psychology. Nor is it the University of Pennsylvania, where Bowling is an instructor assisting well-known professor Martin Seligman, known as the father of positive psychology.

Bowling’s three-year study will investigate what the students’ strengths predict about their performance in law school and about their own sense of well-being. The primary purpose of the study, though, isn’t scientific—it’s to help the students as they make career choices. Bowling hopes the results can also be used by other law schools to help their students.

A study by Seligman has already established that pessimism correlates with success in law school. Some have pointed to the study as the explanation for lawyer unhappiness, but Bowling thinks it’s simplistic to pin the problem solely on pessimism. He’ll study traits like persistence, zest, humor and creativity to learn how they correlate with well-being.

He acknowledges that law school itself can be a difficult experience. “It would be hard to design a model of an educational institution that would do a better job of inducing depression and anxiety in a population than a law school,” Bowling tells the ABA Journal. Among the problems, he says, are the rankings, the sorting of winners and losers, the dearth of cooperative projects and “the whole thinking like a lawyer.”

“If having meaning and a sense of purpose and a calling in one’s life is a key to well-being, much of the first few days and weeks of law school is designed to strip young people of their idealism,” he says. He thinks law schools could teach ways to “ameliorate the damaging effects,” such as techniques to switch off the “thinking like a lawyer” thing.

Bowling also plans to work with alumni at the unnamed law school to learn whether lawyers with certain character strengths are more likely to end up in certain areas of law practice. Unhappy lawyers, he believes, are mismatched with their careers. He gives this example: An outgoing student thinks his traits of extroversion, optimism, social intelligence and eloquence would make litigation an ideal career choice. Then the student goes to work for a large law firm and finds to his dismay that none of those skills is needed in the first few years of practice.

But Bowling doesn’t have specifics on which job choices are the best match for differing character strengths—that’s the “million dollar question,” he says. And the “holy grail,” he says, is to find out which legal professionals are happiest.

“The research is too thin right now to make any kind of proclamations on that,” he says. Common sense, though, would suggest that the happiest lawyers are those who feel they are really good at law practice, who deal with clients and can see the results of their work, or who have a sense that they are involved in a greater cause.

Another question about his research, he says, “and I think it’s a fair question is this one. It’s the so-what question. It is: Whoever said law is supposed to be easy? Law is a career of sacrifice, we sacrifice for clients. … Who said we’re supposed to be happy?” Bowling has an answer. “I think the law can be a jealous mistress, but I also think she can be kind, too,” he says.

Meanwhile, Bowling has this advice for law students: “Don’t fall into a lot of the traps that … your fellow law students will set for you since day one. By traps I mean some of the misinformation like, ‘You’re wasting your time if you’re not top 10 percent, you’re wasting your time if you’re not on law review.’ Realize that law is a wonderful profession; it’s a vibrant stew of opportunity.”

Lawyer Beware, Your Private Conduct Can Have Professional Consequences

Two stories from the ABA this week. The first about a lawyer who was suspended for 2 years due to drunk driving offenses and had sex with some former clients (though many years ago). Now we all know that conduct is frowned upon, but there was no clear indication that 1) he took advantage or disadvantaged any client; and 2) that those relationships were going on during his representation. This suspension is a bit much considering the lack of any dishonest conduct, but is surely more understandable than the second story where a lawyer is facing a grievance for yelling at a protester and using the “C-word.” Our mothers may have a legitimate beef with the use of offensive or ribald language, but a lawyer’s choice of prose while acting in his private, not professional capacity, must be protected speech and if he faces any sanctions for such private speech, we should all be worried.

Legal Ethics – Lawyer Suspended Over DUI Arrests and Secret Sex Tapes

An Illinois attorney has had his law license suspended for two years over a combination of admitted misconduct, including two drunken-driving arrests and videotaping five women in sexual activities at his home without their consent, according to the State Journal-Register.

Nick Burgrabe, 52, formerly worked as a Lincoln city attorney and a Logan County public defender, as well as in private practice. The videos came to light as he and his wife were divorcing.

He refused to identify the five women, but said three were former clients and one was a former secretary in his Lincoln law office, according to a Jan. 5, 2010 report and recommendation by the Review Board of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. It can be found by searching the IARDC website.

The last videotape was made more than a decade ago, the report says.

Burgrabe was also accused of asking a client for a date in 2005 while representing her. However, he denied this and a hearing board found that the allegation was not proven by clear and convincing evidence, the report notes.

Disciplinary authorities considered what would, in effect, have been a shorter suspension, but decided that two years and reinstatement only by order of the court was merited because Burgrabe had not actively sought treatment for his problems.

Lawyer’s C-Word Invective Spurs Criminal, Ethics Charges by Animal Rights Group

A township lawyer in New Jersey is facing the wrath of an animal rights group after he used the C-word to describe one of its demonstrators.

Lawyer Richard Shackleton now faces an ethics grievance and a privately filed criminal complaint as a result of the Feb. 20 dustup outside the Philadelphia Gun Club where the group was protesting, the New Jersey Law Journal reports. Shackleton had taken part in a live pigeon shoot, and as he left, he yelled at a protester, who also happened to be a lawyer. “Go f— yourself, you rotten c—,” he screamed.

Shackleton’s invective was caught on videotape, as was his later refusal to apologize when confronted during the public comment period of a township meeting, the story says. “I meant every word of it,” Shackleton said.

An employee of the group, Showing Animals Respect and Kindness (shortened to SHARK) filed the ethics grievance, while the Pennsylvania lawyer he addressed, Marianne Bessey, filed the private criminal complaint after police did not file charges.

Shackleton’s lawyer is Jeffrey Pollock at Fox Rothschild. He promised a vigorous defense. “If swearing in public in a private capacity is a sanctionable offense, you’re going to lose half the lawyers in New Jersey,” he told the New Jersey Law Journal.

Shackleton told the publication that “representatives of SHARK have been harassing the devil out of us” and they even posted an online video of his 11-year-old granddaughter shooting a gun. He is weighing a lawsuit, though no decision has been made. One possible claim, he said, is malicious interference with contract for attempts to get him fired from his job as Long Beach Township attorney.

Is BigLaw The New Indentured Servitude?

Another interesting article from the ABA this morning, this one involving the potential fallout from some BigLaw firms’ payments of $80,000 to new associates NOT to work (and some who had these new lawyers volunteer at or take public interest jobs). Great line at the end about actually doing the math on your hourly wage when you’re a lawyer. Most lawyers, old and young, fail to monetize their free time. When you get right down to it, many union tradesmen make a far better and fairer wage than us in the ivory tower. Feed the thought and hope for change!

Careers
Will Deferred Associates Idea Backfire for Law Firms?

Law firms that offered deferred associates up to $80,000 to pursue public interest work may be in for a rude awakening: The future talent pool is happy and unwilling to return to private practice.

That’s the assertion of an opinion column by Georgetown University law grad Russ Ferguson in the American Spectator.

“Law firms wanted a reserve workforce committed to them to be on call and ready to go should the market pick back up. What they may be getting, however, is quite different,” Ferguson writes. “A lot of these associates are trying to find a way to stay in their public interest jobs, or at least a related field, and may have given up on law firm work forever.

“These new lawyers have found that their new jobs are more fulfilling and more interesting, and—more importantly—they’ve seen that they can live on a smaller salary. As one of my classmates put it, ‘Add up the hours I worked this week and add up the hours my friends at law firms worked. Divide our salaries by the amount of hours and you’ll see—I’m rich.’ ”

In Custody Battle, Can Court Favor One Religion Over Another

Interesting article this morning from the ABA. A bitter child custody battle became even more so when a father took his child, of all things, to church. As odd as it sounds, the father may be potentially held in contempt for violating a court’s order to only expose a child exclusively to Judaism (as he took his child to a Catholic church service). While it may be confusing for a child to be exposed to more than one set of religious (or even non-religious) beliefs, it appear to me that such an order clearly violates the separation of church and state and interferes with the father’s (and possibly the child’s) freedom of religion:

Family Law
Law Student Charged with Contempt for Exposing Daughter to Christianity

A Chicago law student who took his 3-year-old daughter to Holy Name Cathedral as a television news crew recorded the event has been arraigned on charges of violating a court order.

The unusual order, issued in a bitter custody battle, barred 35-year-old Joseph Reyes from exposing his daughter to any religion other than Judaism, ABC News reports. Reyes, a 2L at John Marshall Law School, pleaded not guilty on Tuesday to a charge of indirect criminal contempt.

Reyes converted to Judaism after his daughter was born, but he says he decided to expose his daughter to the Catholicism he practices after he separated from his wife, the Chicago Sun-Times reports. In his view, the case is about freedom of religion.

Reyes’ wife, Rebecca, had sought a temporary restraining order after her husband sent her photos of their daughter’s baptism in November. The couple had married in 2004 and separated about four years later; their divorce battle continues, the Chicago Tribune reports. She claims in a sworn statement that Joseph Reyes had agreed their daughter would be raised exclusively in the Jewish faith, an allegation he denies.

Rebecca Reyes’ lawyers sought the contempt charge after Joseph Reyes took the girl to Holy Name.

University of Chicago law professor Emily Buss told the Tribune that the order limiting the child to exposure to Judaism is unusual. “Even if [one] parent has more authority in the form of more custody, the other parent can [usually] … still expose the child to his or her religion even if it was not the religious practices within the family when it was intact,” she said.

Five Often-Overlooked Reasons Why You Need a Will

Most people fail to appreciate the full importance of a will, especially if they feel their estate is too small to justify the time and expense of preparing one. And even people who recognize the need for a will often don’t have one, perhaps due to procrastination or a disinclination to broach the subject of mortality with loved ones.

Here are five basic reasons why you should have a will:
Reason 1. To Choose Beneficiaries

The intestate succession laws of the state in which you live determine how your property will be distributed if you die without a valid will. For example, in most states the property of a married person with children who dies intestate (i.e., without a will) generally will be distributed one-third to the spouse and two-thirds to the children, while the property of an unmarried, childless person who dies intestate generally will be distributed to his or her parents (or siblings, if the parents are deceased). These distributions may be contrary to what you want. In effect, by not having a will, you are allowing the state to choose your beneficiaries. Further, a will allows you to specify not only who will receive the property, but how much each beneficiary will receive.

Note: If you wish to leave property to a charity, a will may be needed to accomplish this goal.

Reason 2. To Minimize Taxes

Many people feel they do not need a will because their taxable estate does not exceed the amount allowed to pass free of federal estate tax. These assumptions, however, should be reviewed given the current state of change in the federal estate tax laws. The federal estate tax laws in 2009, 2010 and 2011 are vastly different, for the moment and, therefore, it is important to have your will reviewed and updated as necessary this year.

Most wills were written with the existence of a federal estate tax. However, due to a loophole in the law, both the federal estate tax and the generation skipping transfer tax were repealed at the end of 2009, leaving 2010 without either of these taxes. There is still the gift tax, with the exemption of $1,000,000 during your lifetime, but the tax rate is reduced to 35% in 2010. (In 2009, this rate was 45% and 2011, it will increase to 55%. For both years, the gift tax exemption remains at $1,000,000.)

The federal estate and generation skipping transfer taxes, however, are both scheduled to return in 2011 at much less favorable rates than seen in the past 10 years. In 2011, the estate tax exemption amount will be $1,000,000 with a tax rate of 55% on the remaining estate. This compares to the 2009 exemption amount of $3,500,000 with a tax rate of 45%. Many professionals believe that Congress may retroactively reestablish the 2009 estate tax structure for 2010. This, however, remains to be seen.

Having your will reviewed during these changing times is important as the tax consequences have changed and unanticipated taxes could arise. (For instance, inherited assets subject to capital gain taxes.)

Further, your taxable estate may be larger than you think. For example, life insurance, qualified retirement plan benefits and IRAs typically pass outside of a will or of estate administration. But retirement plan benefits and IRAs (and sometimes life insurance) are still part of your federal estate and can cause your estate to go over the threshold amount. Also, in some states, the estate or inheritance tax differs from the federal laws. A properly prepared will is necessary to implement estate tax reduction strategies.

Tip: Changes in the estate tax laws and in the size of your estate may warrant a re-examination of your estate plan.

Reason 3. To Appoint a Guardian

If for no other reason, you should prepare a will to name a guardian for minor children in the event of your death without a surviving spouse. While naming a guardian does not bind either the named guardian or the court, it does indicate your wishes, which courts generally try to accommodate.
Reason 4. To Name an Executor

Without a will, you cannot appoint someone you trust to carry out the administration of your estate. If you do not specifically name an executor in a will, a court will appoint someone to handle your estate, perhaps someone you might not have chosen. Obviously, there is an advantage, and peace of mind, in selecting an executor you trust.
Reason 5. To Help Establish Domicile

You may wish to firmly establish domicile (permanent legal residence) in a particular state, for tax or other reasons. If you move frequently or own homes in more than one state, each state in which you reside could try to impose death or inheritance taxes at the time of death, possibly subjecting your estate to multiple probate proceedings. To lessen the risk of this, you should execute a will that clearly indicates your intended state of domicile.

Recusal Requests Expected To Increase Due to Judge’s Acceptance of Political Contributions

A recent Supreme Court case may well have an effect on local cases in jurisdictions where there are judicial elections. Indeed, this may have an effect on some states’ analyses on whether to have elections at all, though, one may appropriately wonder whether ANY involvement in the political process (whether by appointment or elections) may have a bearing on the recusal analysis.

From the ABA

Court Watchers Predict ‘Deluge’ of Recusal Requests in Light of Caperton
Posted Jun 11, 2009, 10:57 am CDT
By Molly McDonough

This week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a West Virginia Supreme Court justice should have recused himself from a case involving a party that helped fund his campaign has lawyers across the country predicting a “deluge” of recusal requests.

But judges told the New York Times that few situations would involve conflicts serious enough to result in actual recusals.

On Monday, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that Justice Brent Benjamin should not have participated in a case involving a coal mining executive from Massey Coal Co. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company majority opinion that due process required recusal. Benjamin had twice voted with a 3-2 majority to overturn a $50 million verdict against Massey Energy, despite the large judicial campaign contributions made by CEO Don Blankenship.

One thing is for certain, scrutiny of conflicts will increase.

“You’re going to see a much greater analysis put to the campaign contributions that elected judges get,” ABA President H. Thomas Wells Jr., told the Times.

Because such large campaign donations are rare, Bradley A. Smith, chair of the Center for Competitive Politics, which opposes campaign regulations for First Amendment reasons, said “I wouldn’t think you would find judges panicking” and saying “Whoo! I’d better go over my docket!”

But lawyers told the Times that they see opportunity in the high court’s ruling.

John Wesley Hall Jr. of Little Rock, Ark., said the Caperton ruling gives lawyers who file recusal motions “an issue to argue” on constitutional grounds.

Meanwhile, some states have already started to review where lines should be drawn. Wisconsin will hold rule-making hearings in the coming fall focusing on the influence of political contributions to judges.

William Blackford is an Anne Arundel County Lawyer.

Right To Counsel Wins Again

High Court Overrules Decision Barring Questioning After Lawyer Appointment
Posted May 26, 2009, 09:49 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

The U.S. Supreme Court has overruled a 23-year-old decision that bars police from questioning suspects without the presence of an appointed lawyer.

The court overturned the 1986 decision, Michigan v. Jackson, according to the Associated Press and SCOTUSblog. The Jackson ruling had held that once a suspect has asserted a right to counsel, any waiver of that right during police questioning is not valid unless the suspect initiated communication with the officers.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority decision in the 5-4 case, Montejo v. Louisiana. He said Jackson had required “voluntariness on stilts” and noted that other Supreme Court decisions protect defendants from being badgered into confessing.

Petitioner Jesse Montejo waived his Miranda rights when police questioned him in connection with the robbery and murder of the owner of a dry cleaners. He ultimately confessed to the crime. During a later preliminary hearing a judge ordered the appointment of a public defender. After another visit by detectives, Montejo wrote a letter of apology, which was introduced at his trial and challenged on appeal.

“When a court appoints counsel for an indigent defendant in the absence of any request on his part, there is no basis for a presumption that any subsequent waiver of the right to counsel will be involuntary,” Scalia wrote in the opinion (PDF).

“No reason exists to assume that a defendant like Montejo, who has done nothing at all to express his intentions with respect to his Sixth Amendment rights, would not be perfectly amenable to speaking with the police without having counsel present. And no reason exists to prohibit the police from inquiring.”

Scalia wrote that the Supreme Court has protected defendants in three other opinions:

• Miranda v. Arizona, requiring defendants to be advised of the right to a lawyer and the right against self-incrimination.

• Edwards v. Arizona, which requires police interrogation to stop once a defendant invokes his right to have counsel present.

• Minnick v. Mississippi, which bars further police interrogation without the presence of counsel after the initial request for a lawyer.

“These three layers of prophylaxis are sufficient,” Scalia wrote. “Under the Miranda-Edwards-Minnick line of cases (which is not in doubt), a defendant who does not want to speak to the police without counsel present need only say as much when he is first approached and given the Miranda warnings. At that point, not only must the immediate contact end, but ‘badgering’ by later requests is prohibited.”

“Jackson was policy driven, and if that policy is being adequately served through other means, there is no reason to retain its rule. Miranda and the cases that elaborate upon it already guarantee not simply noncoercion in the traditional sense, but what Justice Harlan referred to as ‘voluntariness with a vengeance,’ 384 U. S., at 505 (dissenting opinion). There is no need to take Jackson’s further step of requiring voluntariness on stilts.”

William Blackford is an Anne Arundel County Lawyer.

I share at least one similarity with a supreme court justice!

Well, time for my confession…I, too, am a whole-apple eater. This is surprising as I share so few traits with highly successful, smart people! Interesting article follows about Justice Souter. May God bless all moderate justices, especially those who buck the pressures of party affiliation.

Odd Details of Souter’s Life Chronicled, Including Apple Appetite
Posted May 4, 2009, 08:55 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Unusual details of Justice David H. Souter’s personal life are beginning to emerge, from the way he eats an apple, core and all, to the way he met New Hampshire’s governor—at his hometown’s town dump, something of a place for socializing.

The Washington Post and the New York Times both published stories focusing on Souter’s personal life after news reports last week that the 69-year-old justice would be retiring and returning to his beloved hometown of Weare, N.H.

The New York Times describes Souter’s farmhouse, with peeling paint and rotting wood, as looking “only slightly more seductive than a mud hut.” The Post, on the other hand, notes five daffodils blooming alongside weeds at the house, a rusty wheelbarrow in the yard and windows “sagging with age.” Souter’s “creaking, unkempt house looks so haunted that some people who passed by said they assumed it had been abandoned,” the Post says.

The Times describes Weare as a town where residents go to a go-kart track for entertainment and socialize at the town dump. Souter is said to have met Gov. John Lynch, who lives in a neighboring town, at the dump.

“Justice Souter’s life here is ascetic but hardly hermitic, people who know him say,” the Times reports. “He visits with his neighbors, goes to church, drops by parties and keeps an office in the federal courthouse in Concord, where friends sometimes join him for lunch.” He also enjoys hiking in the nearby mountains and goes for long walks at night with a flashlight, according to the Post.

He also jogs in Washington, D.C., and got mugged one night in 2004, according to the Post.

Souter never unpacked the belongings he took to his rented apartment in Washington, D.C., 19 years ago when he became a Supreme Court justice, according to the Post. The lifelong bachelor “dislikes schmoozing at cocktail parties” the story says, and jokes about his shyness in public. A disciplined man, he works 12-hour days, and at lunchtime he usually eats only yogurt and an apple, core and all.

Souter may be the court’s most frugal justice, according to the Post. He had only $627,000 in assets when he became a justice, but now is worth between $6 million and $30 million “thanks to a shrewd investment in a New England bank.”

A separate article in the New York Times by former Supreme Court correspondent Linda Greenhouse asserts that it’s wrong to view Souter as a misfit or a loner.

“To focus on his eccentricities—his daily lunch of yogurt and an apple, core and all; the absence of a computer in his personal office—is to miss the essence of a man who in fact is perfectly suited to his job, just not to its trappings,” Greenhouse writes. “His polite but persistent questioning of lawyers who appear before the court displays his meticulous preparation and his mastery of the case at hand and the cases relevant to it. Far from being out of touch with the modern world, he has simply refused to surrender to it control over aspects of his own life that give him deep contentment: hiking, sailing, time with old friends, reading history.”

Facebook and the law

Technology will always present new questions and issues, much like my dream that x-ray goggles really worked. This is an interesting article about the ethics of plumbing the net for information on witnesses

Attorney Can’t Ask 3rd Party to ‘Friend’ Witness on Facebook, Opinion Says
Posted May 5, 2009, 07:38 pm CDT
By Martha Neil

A lawyer who wants to see what a potential witness says to personal contacts on his or her Facebook or MySpace page has one good option, a recent ethics opinion suggests: Ask for access.

Alternative approaches, such as secretly sending a third party to “friend” a Facebook user, are unethical because they are deceptive, says the Philadelphia Bar Association in a March advisory opinion.

Not telling the potential witness of the third party’s affiliation with the lawyer “omits a highly material fact, namely, that the third party who asks to be allowed access to the witness’s pages is doing so only because he or she is intent on obtaining information and sharing it with a lawyer for use in a lawsuit to impeach the testimony of the witness,” the opinion explains.

“The omission would purposefully conceal that fact from the witness for the purpose of inducing the witness to allow access, when she [might] not do so if she knew the third person was associated with the inquirer and the true purpose of the access was to obtain information for the purpose of impeaching her testimony.”

Facebook and MySpace profiles are different from public spaces where one can freely film and record others, the opinion says, because an invitation is required to access them, notes a Social Media Today post on the opinion.