header-logo header-logo

29 September 2023
Issue: 8042 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Good manners for barristers

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

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Robert Dransfield

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Robert Dransfield

London medical negligence practice strengthened by senior partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—seven appointments

DAC Beachcroft—seven appointments

Firm boosts professional risk practice with team hire in Manchester, led by partner Ben Parks

Doyle Clayton—Benedicte Perowne

Doyle Clayton—Benedicte Perowne

Workplace law firm appoints new head of regulatory team

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll