header-logo header-logo

Barristers risking it all with tweets

29 July 2022
Issue: 7989 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail
The formidable legal Twitterati has come under the watchful eye of regulators concerned about the reputation of the profession

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) last week launched interim social media guidance as well as a three-month consultation on proposed new social media guidance and regulation of non-professional conduct. It wants to clarify the boundaries when regulating conduct in a barrister’s private life.

The BSB said regulation must address conduct in the barrister’s private life that might have an impact on the public’s confidence in them as professional barristers, but also balance barristers’ human rights against the public interest in preserving public confidence.

In terms of revising its social media guidance, its draft guidance suggests it is unlikely to be concerned about political views or comments criticising political figures as these ‘sit at the top of the hierarchy of free speech values’. The use of foul language is unlikely to be a breach.

Examples that would be of concern include ‘making comments which are of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character or which are gratuitously abusive’ or ‘making comments that are critical of judges or the judiciary beyond what is “discreet, honest and dignified”’.

It provides case studies of conduct that could diminish public trust, such as deliberately misgendering a transgender woman in several tweets and threatening them, or sending ‘seriously offensive private messages on LinkedIn’ to a person the barrister has connected with but does not know offline.

Mark Fenhalls QC, chair of the Bar Council, said: ‘We know from our own ethical enquiries service that issues relating to social media and barristers’ private lives can be difficult to navigate.

‘We have long argued that the Bar needed more clarity from the regulator on where the balance lies.’

The consultations, which can be found here, close on 20 October 2022 at 5pm.

Issue: 7989 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll