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In terms of revising its social media guidance, its draft guidance suggests it is unlikely to be concerned about political views or comments criticising political figures as these ‘sit at the top of the hierarchy of free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

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll