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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll