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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll