header-logo header-logo

29 July 2022
Issue: 7989 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Barristers risking it all with tweets

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In terms of revising its social media guidance, its draft guidance suggests it is unlikely to be concerned about political views or comments criticising political figures as these ‘sit at the top of the hierarchy of free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

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll