Lawyers in the US acting for I.Lewis Libby Junior reportedly asked that a court did not disclose letters written in support of the Vice President's former chief of staff.
When representatives of the news media asked that the letters be released, Mr. Libby’s lawyers argued against that, saying it “needlessly risks undermining the fair administration of justice.”
Then, alluding to the sometimes combative world of online media, they added there was “the real possibility that these letters, once released, would be published on the Internet and their authors discussed, even mocked, by bloggers.
The letters were released and "discussed" by bloggers, much as you'd expect.
What's interesting from a UK legal perspective is the comment by Jonathan Zittrain, (Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation and Director of Graduate Studies at the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford) who is quoted at in the New York Times article. He agreed that the letters had to be made public because of the serious issues involved, but said that the legal system must address the rapid spread of information online that, in the past, would be available only “in the dusty courthouse file.”
"The act of writing a letter in a much lower-profile case will be on the ‘permanent record’ of the Internet,” he said. “That is a difference, and it is totally sensible to think about if this is what we want.”
Ten years ago, there was no chance that any letter written in relation to any legal proceedings being read by more than a handful of people involved in the legal proceedings themselves. Now, anyone writing a letter - and that includes all lawyers - can readily expect to see scanned copies of their correspondence on the internet, whether they like it or not. It surprises me, and whilst it is important to consider the wider implications and the impact on the administration of justice, I suspect the harsh reality is that there's going to be more disclosure than less.
Comments