Being measured

20 Jan 2021Opinion

It seems legal regulators take a particularly dim view of online discretions, compared with other regulators, says Susan Humble

Social media has changed the way we communicate. It’s a cheap and quick way to engage with clients and potential clients.

The gratification of ‘likes’ and ‘retweets’ can also be addictive. Horace famously said: “Lawyers are men who hire out their words and their anger”.

How times have changed. Women can now be lawyers; and our words – in 280 characters, can be instantly distributed globally. It’s quite a responsibility, as tweets are powerful marketing tools (as Donald Trump has shown).

My research, dating back to 2010, on social media misconduct by lawyers revealed nothing until 2016. A solicitor who posted “unprofessional and offensive” tweets concerning his success in defeating cases brought on behalf of children with special educational needs resulted in a regulatory settlement agreement with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), a rebuke and a £600 costs bill.

By August 2017, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) had suspended a solicitor for a year and fined him £25,000 for posting anti-Semitic tweets. Informed by that decision, the SRA quickly issued a warning notice on offensive communications (updated in November 2019), which highlights:

•   Offensive or pejorative comments relating to race, sexual orientation, or religion.
•   Reference to women in derogatory terms and making sexually explicit comments.
•   Comments which harass or victimise the recipient.
•   Using language intended to shock or threaten.
•   Making offensive or abusive comments to another firm about that firm or its client, or to individuals who are unrepresented.

In 2018, the SDT suspended a solicitor for 18 months for “lack of integrity in such a public, offensive and wholly unacceptable way” by making various tweets about Islam, Judaism, Catholicism and a drag artist (it wasn’t alleged that she lacked diversity in her opinions…).

A year later, the inappropriate tweeting by a criminal solicitor of his daily work activities was not only a breach of confidentiality but aggravated by sad face and tear emojis after the words “Sexual Assault”. The SRA accepted that there was no lack of integrity and imposed a rebuke and a £1,500 fine.

There are no published 2020 cases from either the SRA, the SDT or the bar. This may be caused by covid-related delays in processing cases or an indication that warning notices are having an impact on behaviour. Time will tell.

What about other regulators? In 2014, a social worker was sanctioned by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) with a 12-month conditions of practice order after posting potentially identifying comments on Facebook about a child protection case.

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) agreed recently that conditions should continue to be imposed on a doctor for a further 12 months, for (among other things), sending an email containing “inappropriate and offensive” comments to a colleague.

A care home nurse lost her job for attending an anti-lockdown rally after posting comments on social media suggesting covid-19 is a hoax. In 2019, a vet was reprimanded and warned for dishonesty in her online offerings and for failing to get permission to share photos on social media (vets regularly use pictures of their work as testimonials).

There is a disparity in sanctions across regulators, with legal regulators appearing to take the dimmest view. This may be because words are our business, and we’re expected to use them carefully and to be measured.

Firms should encourage their lawyers’ use of social media for networking, building an online brand and getting to know clients better. It can be an important tool for generating the public’s respect and confidence (the public being our target market).

Firms should have a social media policy in place; and individuals must take care to avoid breaches of confidentiality. Content must be accurate, straightforward and not misleading; and specific legal advice should not be given.

Perhaps the hardest rule for those of us argumentative types: don’t get drawn into heated debate. Step away from the trolls. Sometimes, to paraphrase Ronan Keating, we say it best online when we say nothing at all.

Susan Humble is a senior partner at Susan Humble at RIAA Barker Gillette riaabarkergillette.com She is former CEO of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com

Trust, transparency and the limits of legal self-regulation

Transparency reforms were meant to empower consumers, but uneven delivery now risks undermining confidence across the profession

Government scraps audit reform

What the collapse of the Audit Reform Bill means for regulation, accountability and legal practice

Sewage pollution litigation after Manchester Ship Canal

How the Supreme Court’s ruling is reshaping nuisance claims, protest litigation and regulatory limits across England and Wales

FCA non-financial misconduct rules clarified

The FCA’s final guidance on non-financial misconduct offers clarification, but leaves firms grappling with judgement-heavy implementation

Judiciary launches new diversity strategy initiative

The judiciary's new strategy aims to enhance diversity in the UK judicial system over five years

Personal injury claims numbers plummet dramatically

The number of personal injury claims in the UK has hit unprecedented lows, especially motor injury claims

Government urged to review legal costs

A senior costs lawyer has called for an independent review of fixed costs in the legal industry, highlighting the detrimental impact on firms and access to justice.

Building Safety Act litigation redefines investor risk

Recent case law shows how courts and tribunals are extending Building Safety Act liabilities beyond what investors originally anticipated

US musicians lose challenge over UK performers' rights restrictions

High Court rules treaty obligations non-justiciable in domestic law without parliamentary incorporation.

Actinon PTE Limited v Char Biocarbon Inc: Affirmation and contractual obligations

Commercial dispute highlights principles of waiver by election and contract interpretation

Matthew Haydon v R: Court of Appeal clarifies "likely" in explosive substances offences

Court confirms "likely" means "could well happen" rather than "more probable than not"

Cloisters Business Centre v Anvari: mixed-use premises and service charge protection

Court confirms tenants of mixed-use properties qualify for statutory service charge controls.

NHS commissioning activities fall outside TUPE protection, Court of Appeal rules

Employment law case clarifies when healthcare reorganisations trigger transfer protections for staff.

BTR Core Fund v HMRC: Upper Tribunal clarifies overpayment relief exclusions

Stamp duty land tax overpayment relief and the meaning of "mistake in a claim"

Court of Appeal rules criminal earnings count as income for ESA purposes

Criminal activity constitutes work and generates income for benefits assessment purposes.

SJ Interview: Joelle Grogan

Dr Joelle Grogan is a legal scholar specialising in the rule of law in times of crisis. She presents The Law Show on BBC Radio 4, and is Co-Academic Director of the Rule of Law Clinic at the CEU Democracy Institute (Budapest), and a Senior Research Fellow at the UCD Sutherland School of Law. Her work focuses on constitutional accountability, emergency powers, and legal misinformation. In this interview, she examines the pressures facing the rule of law in the UK, from executive power and court delays to media narratives, emergencies, and the impact of AI on legal practice.

Justice reform risks targeting the wrong fix

As 2026 approaches, ministers eye jury trials while ignoring deeper causes of England’s criminal justice crisis