Now, suddenly, there is a new problem!!

On 1st October 2009, the High Court jumped into the “Tweetosphere” (is there such a word, after Blogosphere?) by agreeing to allow a claimant to serve an injunction via Twitter.

Mr Justice Lewison agreed with Matthew Richardson instructed by Griffin Law that Twitter was the best way to reach the person behind www.twitter.com/blaneysblarney whose anonymous writer was said to be impersonating Donal Blaney. Richardson said that the ruling had widespread implications for identity theft on the internet. A spokesman from Strathclyde University called it a landmark decision.

Although the details are not clear (and at first there was some suggestion that the court had authorised the issue of a writ(sic)/injunction via Twitter) it seems that the court authorised the injunction to be served via Twitter and because of the 140 character limit on Tweets there was a link to a webpage where the full content of the court order was set out.

All this, on the same day that the eleven new Supreme Court Justices were sworn in before enjoying the Lord Chancellor’s Breakfast which traditionally starts the legal year. Readers will be delighted to remember that the Lord Chancellor has not yet been abolished despite the best efforts of Tony Blair and Lord Falconer and despite the fact that the present if not final incumbent is plain Mr Straw.

Last Straw or not, this development is certainly a first and coming, as it did, on the very day that the Supreme Court opened for business, it is an early and powerful endorsement of the way the law, so often called an ass, can be at the cutting edge of technology.

The decision establishes the principle that anonymity on the internet is not to be used as a cloak to hide the identity of people who break the law.

Who said lawyers did not need to understand the basics of technology? Whoever it was, don’t you believe it!!

Readers of this blog (though apparently not my nearest and dearest, friends and neighbours) will know that  Twitter is a free online service which enables users to send and read messages of no longer than 140 characters known as Tweets.

I conducted a random poll around our house over breakfast amongst people ranging in age from 22 to 59 and no one had used the service nor knew what it was for. I assumed, as a result, that it must be for the very young who were not represented at the poached egg stage or for celebrities such as Stephen Fry and Barack Obama whose tweets have found their way into the press. 

How wrong can you be? The article explained that according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, the average age of the twitterer is a positively wrinkly 31!! Only 11% are aged between 12 and 17, according to another research company, comScore. 

The Sunday Times wondered whether Twitter was worth one billion dollars based on a recent investment believed to be of the order of $100 million or whether it was likely to be an example of the dot com boom and bust and would disappear within a short time. 

What caught my eye, however, were comments such as: 

• “Twitter is “redefining the way people communicate”.
• “During the Iranian election Twitter became a sounding board for angry voters”.
• “On Twitter you choose to hear from me and more importantly interact with me in a two way dialogue”.
• “It’s very quick, very easy, you opt in, I’m not bothering anybody with emails or text messages, you choose when you do it. That could be very valuable-especially when it comes to brands who want to develop a deeper relationship with customers”. 

Now we all get cross with spam, pop ups, television advertisements interrupting our favourite programmes and other unwanted intrusions into our lives. I return to another favourite theme (see my  previous post ‘Opus interruptus‘ ) and I have quoted previously from a report  which revealed that once someone had been interrupted by an incoming email it took 25 minutes for them to get back to work. We all know the feeling.

While the claims made for Twitter will have to be tested over time, and I, for one, am not in the slightest bit interested in what Stephen Fry may have to say when stuck in a lift, I began to wonder whether the founders of Twitter might not be on to something if they can persuade a sceptical public that there is more to life and Twitter than telling anyone who cares to read it, about what you had for breakfast. 

One of the greatest annoyances experienced by me when I was a busy litigator was the interruption from a wholly random and unknown source often trying to interest me in something of dubious value at a time when time was precious and the next deadline or meeting were fast approaching. It made little difference if the source of the interruption was known nor even if the person interrupting was someone you liked! 

By now on the third cup of coffee and keen to avoid the jobs lined up for me in the garden, I reflected that a marketing device which allowed potential customers to choose when to be interrupted might work well in the e-discovery market. It is well known that there are many providers of e-discovery services (I counted approximately 50 serious players the other day and if you Google e-discovery you get millions of hits) and that it is difficult for lawyers to know how to choose between them.

I thought that lawyers might look kindly on the provider who did not interrupt them but who allowed them to look at the information (remember only 140 characters) at a time of their own choosing and convenience. 

A blog is very similar in that it is read only by those who want to read it and at the time when they have time to read it. I hope that those with a little bit of time will let me know what they think about the possibilities, by posting a comment here.

Who knows, the next thing may be advertising what e-discovery providers actually offer, on YouTube!! I will return to that at another time.

Tweets may seem inconsequential but they could easily be disclosable. The scenario is obvious. A is involved in a deal with B and as part of the communication chain they exchange not only e-mails and texts but tweets. Litigation ensues and the tweets are deemed to be disclosable. 

Unlikely? Maybe, but impossible? I don’t think so.

[I am indebted to LegalSparrow for pointing out that the phenomenon of 'twitigation' is already upon us, see his/her comment here]