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

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
Human rights lawyers, social justice champion, co-founder of the law firm Bindmans, and NLJ columnist Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC has died at the age of 92 years
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'
back-to-top-scroll