WDPCCT re: this?

GBCK

because I land in the "holy breech of ethics batman" and "dude, you're worried about the 'wrong' things" category.
But that's just me:

http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/1/41886011/ShowThread.aspx


for those who would rather C&P than have linkage:

OP:

My family just moved to a new neighborhood and have started meeting some of the other families and DD has made a lot of new friends.  I am somewhat of a paranoid freak.  I would prefer if DD did not go to other people's houses, especially since we don't know them at all. 

I work for a criminal defense attorney and this has probably contributed to my paranoia.  Anyway, we have access to look up people and their criminal history.  If my child is going to be playing at these people's house, then I would like to know what, if anything, is in their criminal history.  I have seen all to often, the nice older grandfather that lives down the street, but is a convicted sex offender.  You just never know!

If you had access to this information would you look it up or do you think it is an invasion of privacy?

 

Updates in post from OP:

 

CamrynnsMommy:

First, of all most of the information is a matter of public record, for me it is just in one centralized location and I don' t have to look all over.

Second, the neighbor did indicate that her DH was incarcerated for a minor crime.  However, people are not always honest in these situations.

-------------

I am not talking minor infractions.  Everyone has things in their past, but as I said in my PP, the neighbor indicated that her DH had done time in prison for driving on a suspended license.  That doesn't add up.

--------

***I understand that people have minor infractions and I have seen the justice system fail people.  I understand that not everyone with a criminal history is a bad person.  I also have intentions of telling anyone in the neighborhood about the information I have found.  This was solely for my use. 

-----------

FOR THE RECORD:  I asked my attorney if this was in fact illegal and she said that it IS NOT, the search engine I used is available for anyone to use!

Thank you for all your opinions, I did look him up and she was not telling the truth about his crime.  I will allow my child to play with her child, but DD will not play in their house alone. 

------------

CamrynnsMommy:

 

Clearly, I am not alone, as many of the PP's said they would do the same darn thing. 

I am not using Westlaw, Caselaw or any software that charges our firm.  As I said, it is all a matter of public record.  Actually, these people were our clients, so I didn't even have to look them up. 

I do not feel bad for wanting to look them up. Call it paranoia or nosiness, I do not care. I am very happy that your children will not be exposed to this type of paranoia though.  GOOD FOR YOU!

-----

(bolding not the OPs, obviously)

TheDuckis

Meh. There are tons of sexual predator websites available to the public, and I'm pretty sure criminal convictions are public record, so there's really nothing here to flame her for.

That said, why not just get to know the neighbors? When I was little we weren't allowed to play in anyone's house unless their parents were friends with our parents.

VarunaTT

It depends on the HOW of looking it up.  Yes, it is all public information, but if she logged in with her attorney's information, it could be a breach of ethics, it just depends on some other circumstances.   It also would depend on the search engine, b/c some of them allow log ons as attorneys, PIs, etc.  Again, if she didn't log on as herself, it'd could be a violation.  But, most of the search engines I've ever used, the general public can pay to have access to as well and some of them I have bought for myself and used.

GBCK

sorry, I suppose it would be easier if I summed it up than just C&Ped the OP's posts.

Basically the OP works for an attorney's office and is using whatever database they have to look up info on the neighbors.  Oh, but she didn't have to complete the search that way...they happen to be CLIENTS of her firm's so she got all the dirt w/o using the database...
And she asked if this was a problem and got a mix of yes and no.
And I find it a pretty big breech of ethics. (and I also wonder why the hell she asked since she's quite sure she's right)

I have to say, I'd be kinda pissy if the neighbors paid to look me up on ANY search engine--sure, it tell s you stuff but those things 1-aren't always accurate and 2-contribute strongly to a false sense of security.

VarunaTT

GBCK, the databases you pay to you are SCARILY accurate.  I was able to bust at least 3 clients lying to me b/c of asset lists that are available for the general public to buy.  You leave a paper trail when you do anything anymore.

I don't see why her getting the dirt on her own firm's client is wrong.  I mean, it would happen regardless of if this person was her neighbor or not.  She used that info to not let her kid hang out with that person.  Trust me, over the years I had clients that I wouldn't have associated with outside of the office and a few that if I had run into outside of the office I probably would've wished for a gun.  Office dirt is also how I know what attorneys to tell friends to go to and which ones to avoid.  Now, it's how I can tell people what doctors and hospitals to avoid.  It's part of normal business.  You don't mention HOW you know, but if you're a paralegal and you say, "Well, I wouldn't really recommend X, but X is really good," everyone knows how you arrived at that decision.

6fsn

I read the whole thread and I think she overstepped her professional bounds.

VarunaTT

I got through 2 pages and don't want to read anymore.

If she seriously wants to do that, I do think she should just pay to have her own log-in.  One of the log-ins I "paid" for didn't even charge you until you hit $10 on looking at documents and since I was just looking up one case, I don't think I ever even had to pay for it.

And I did it on my own computer and time.

GBCK

the problem being that accuracy is relative...
I don't really trust a random bumpie to have the brains to say "huh, this person had a pot conviction becasue of medical MJ BS" vs "this person was convicted of having sex w/ an underage girl when he was 19 and the girl was 17" vs "tried to drop-kick kittens"

And really...some of the people you REALLY have to watch out for are those w/o a record--I think the false sense of security that comes from background checks is INCREDIBLY scary.
I mean, at work, they took a hair sample and did a background check and, wallah, go play w/ underage kids unsupervised.
(hell, to substitute teach, they took the fingerprints, gave me my walking papers, sent me to sub a week later, KNOWING that the results from the prints would take over SIX MONTHS to come back...actually, mine never came back, they were apparently un-readable by the computers.)

And I know, we all use data from work--hell, I know that there are instructors I'd NEVER take because of inside dirt I have.
But I think actually going through files in her firm's office is probably more problematic than goibng through the county database.  Because that would have a LOT more info in it, wouldn't it?

VarunaTT

She got the dirt from chatting more than likely.  There were plenty of clients that I told my attorneys I thought were lying to me, but that doesn't go into the file if you can't prove it.

And sure, the general public isn't really going to understand court filings.  Hell, not all attorneys understand all court filings, b/c they're specialized.

I think she's paranoid and I think she probably skirted the line of overstepping (she's not an officer of the court, so doesn't have an ethics code to be bound to like her attorney does), but if it's truly just a public database that isn't being paid for and isn't requiring her to log on as her boss, she hasn't done anything wrong.  Just b/c people don't LIKE that the info can be found, doesn't mean that it's wrong to find it.

Sloane99

I don't think it's wrong to look up on a public database on her own time and computer. I google plenty of people, I would even go further if I had suspicions about someone my children were hanging out with. I don't know that she has to follow a code of ethics deemed by her profession but she may have a code of conduct that's required of her employer that this violates.

I also need more context on the "these people are clients of the firm" statement. If she came across that information unknowingly - as in a file passed her desk and she recognized the last name and put it all together in some sort of mosaic theory format I also don't think that's wrong.