header-logo header-logo

Good manners for barristers

29 September 2023
Issue: 8042 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail
Using foul language on social media is fine but posting dishonest or discriminatory material online is not, according to guidance issued by the Bar Standards Board (BSB)

‘Gratuitously abusive’ comments may be of interest to the BSB if part of ‘seriously offensive, discriminatory, harassing, threatening, or bullying’ conduct online that targets an individual or group. Sharing such offensive content online without making it clear that you disagree with it is also likely to raise alarm bells as it could be seen as an endorsement. The BSB warns it is in the public interest to regulate such conduct because it demonstrates the barrister’s attitude to people from certain groups, which indicates how the barrister might interact with them and provide legal services to them, and therefore risks access to justice.

The BSB published its Guidance on the regulation of non-professional conduct last week, along with revised social media guidance, and revisions to the BSB Handbook.

The guidance aims to clarify where the boundaries lie in relation to conduct that occurs outside professional practice. For example, the BSB is unlikely to be interested if a barrister receives a fixed penalty notice for not wearing a seatbelt while driving, or is arrested but not subsequently charged during a climate change protest, or has failed to repay a substantial loan to a friend.

However, failure to repay a loan where the creditor has secured a court order or failure to pay VAT or other tax may be of interest as this type of conduct is likely to diminish public trust in the profession. If the barrister is charged with an indictable offence, the BSB is likely to pause any regulatory assessment until after the court case concludes unless the barrister is a potential risk to clients and colleagues.

Nick Vineall KC, Chair of the Bar Council, said: ‘As we know from our own ethical enquiries service, issues relating to social media and barristers’ private lives can be difficult to navigate.

‘We think that the BSB has struck the appropriate balance, and it is right that the regulator focuses on the use of language that is seriously offensive, discriminatory, bullying or harassing. Regardless of where the line is drawn in terms of professional misconduct, there will be a huge space where comment that does not amount to misconduct is nevertheless unkind, unnecessary, and profoundly undesirable. Ultimately, if you would not say something to someone’s face, don’t say it to them, or about them, on social media.’

Issue: 8042 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll