Like a lot of lawyers, I left Twitter over the summer.
I joined up in March 2009 (fifteen years ago!) and had a lot of fun with it: getting dopamine hits when people liked my generally inconsequential tweets; using it as a source of news and finding out about the latest court judgments; getting into conversations that were often interesting or amusing. Once in a while, a celebrity would respond and it would be exciting to have momentary contact with luminaries such as Nigella Lawson, Sir Geoffrey Boycott or Tanika Tikaram.
At best, Twitter was like a drinks party with a variety of interesting and unexpected guests. I enjoyed the process of learning to communicate with extreme brevity (originally 140 characters, later 280). The medium worked best where the tweet was dashed off: the longer you spent thinking about it or correcting the grammar, the more leaden and ineffective the outcome.
But with the internet’s combination of immediacy and permanence (‘the internet is written in ink’) comes risk. The drinks party was taking place in a room with a trap door, which in some situations could be a ‘moon door’, through which anyone could fall at any time.
Tweets that might have been intended as light-hearted became career-defining, most famously Joylon Maughan KC’s Boxing Day tweets about killing a fox with a baseball bat while wearing a kimono. A single tweet could even be career-ending. In the time it took to fly from JFK from Cape Town, a bad taste tweet about catching AIDS in Africa became viral, and the writer lost her job (‘How one stupid tweet blew up Justine Sacco’s life‘). Or an innocuous tweet could awaken the attention of some truly unpleasant and threatening trolls, ranging from trans activists to extreme conspiracy theorists.
Perhaps that sense of danger added to the excitement of Twitter. But over time, and particularly since Elon Musk’s ‘let that sink in’ takeover, the atmosphere coarsened and changed. Twitter became less fun and more tedious. Elon Musk’s tweets became increasingly unavoidable. In the drive for profits, controls were relaxed, undesirables were unblocked and a flood of cheap adverts, pro-Trump propaganda and pornography turned up. If there was a single breaking point, for me it was Musk’s tweet about the inevitability of civil war following the Southport riots. The ‘free speech crusade’ seemed to amount to little more than shouting fire in a theatre.
So, over the summer, I took the decision to leave, and I was surprised how easy it was to cut the ties. A couple of years ago I would have found it difficult. I wouldn’t say I was ever addicted to tweeting, but my tweeting habit had became a bit unhealthy. Such as when one of my children busted me tweeting, “Daughter just kicked over my coffee on tube, didn’t apologise, turns out Metro newspaper has zero absorbency, Cracking start to day”. With hindsight, public child shaming wasn’t a great look. Maybe I am as mentally ill equipped to deal with the concept of having 5,000 followers (a mere fraction compared to some other barristers) as adolescents who at least have the excuse of incompletely developed brains.
I tried a couple of alternatives and ended up on Bluesky (@familybrief.bsky.social), which is civilised and cerebral but lacks the colour and atmosphere of Twitter at its best. Posting on Bluesky reminds me of what people said when Arsenal first played at the Emirates: so quiet, its like playing football in a cathedral. Maybe that will change over time?
But the heady days of ‘legal twitter’ before Elon Musk took it over probably will never return.
Barristers and self-promotion
Let us not forget that there was a time, within living memory, when it was professional misconduct for a barrister to tout for work, whether having a business card, attending a solicitor’s drinks party of expressing a personal opinion about a case. The pendulum has now swung violently in the other direction. Social media has been populated with posts from chambers or the individual barrister about directory entries, commentary on the law (I plead guilty on both charges) and how we have successfully argued points/ secured convictions/ overturned previous orders.
But there is a spectre haunting these social media posts, and that is the spectre of regulation. An increasing number of complaints about lawyers relate to social media posts and the professional bodies have drawn up increasingly strict guidance.
BSB Guidance
On 1 September 2023, the BSB issued its Guidance for Barristers using social media. The guidance explained that ‘the special status of lawyers… in the administration of justice’ requires a restriction on the (Article 10) right to freedom of expression:
“[8] …We may consider taking regulatory action against you where your conduct on social media is such that it is potentially in breach of the BSB Handbook. The BSB is more likely to have a regulatory interest in social media use where the manner in which you express yourself is inconsistent with your obligations under the BSB Handbook. We are less likely to have an interest in the substance of the views that you hold (however unpopular they may be). However, there may be cases where the views or opinions that you express may mean that regulatory action is justifiable, for example, where you post material online which is dishonest or discriminatory.”
…
[16] The inherently public nature of social media means that anything you post online could theoretically be at risk of being read by anyone and could be linked back to your status as a barrister, regardless of whether you identify yourself on social media as a barrister. This exposure can have an impact on the extent to which public confidence in you or the profession is likely to be diminished by your use of social media. Posts or comments visible only to a limited audience may nevertheless amount to a potential breach of the BSB Handbook because there is a risk they could resurface or be shared more widely than intended (such as through saving or screenshotting).
…
In considering a potential breach of the BSB Handbook relating to your conduct on social media, we will take into account:
(a) How a hypothetical, ordinary reasonable person would be likely to respond to your conduct, having regard to the wider context in which it occurred. This will involve an objective assessment based on the “natural and ordinary meaning” of what you post. The social media platform which you use may also be relevant. The views and/or reaction of any individual who reported the conduct to us, while potentially relevant, is unlikely to be determinative.
(b) The substance of what you post (including the type of speech engaged, such as whether it is “mere gossip” or contributes to a debate in the public interest9). We recognise that political speech is afforded the highest level of protection under Article 10 and is something in which we are unlikely to have a regulatory interest. However, we are likely to have a regulatory interest in conduct which is not afforded the protections guaranteed by Article 10, by virtue of Article 17 ECHR (i.e. conduct which is aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms of others). Case law from the European Court of Human Rights has found that this includes extreme or grave forms of hate speech, a threat of or incitement to violence, xenophobia, racial discrimination, Antisemitism, Islamophobia and Holocaust denial.
(c) The manner in which you express your views (including the language used), the mode of publication, and the broader context. While the right to hold a view and say something may be protected by Article 10, if there is something objectionable about the manner in which it is expressed, this could be a potential breach of the BSB Handbook and therefore we may have a regulatory interest in your conduct.
(d) The impact of your conduct. This may include the impact on individuals or organisations, and/or on public trust and confidence in you or the profession. The purpose behind your conduct may not always be relevant.
Given the time it takes for regulatory complains to be heard, it is too early to know how this guidance will be enforced and what sort of reprimands a barrister will face if he/ she has been found to breach this guidance. The situation might become clearer once certain cases that are before the Bar Disciplinary Tribunal are finally heard.
Finally, there is the Updated Guidance from the LCJ on Social Media Use (October 2024)
In 2021 the Judicial Executive Board issued Social Media Guidance for the Judiciary. This has now been significantly tightened up by (internal) circulation of October 2024 Guidance which is not yet in the public domain. This follows the reprimand of Deputy Senior District Judge Ikram on 11 June 2024 following his liking of a post on LinkedIn which described Israel’s involvement in Gaza in insulting terms.
The new guidance expressly applies to all full time and part time judges, including recorders, deputy district judges, tribunal members, coroners and magistrates.
The key conclusions, which have been discussed on Bluesky, should be noted very carefully for anyone who sits including This includes the following:
- ‘Active use of social media… is discouraged’
- No reference should be made to being a judge in any social media profile;
- There is a blanket ban on posting, liking or reposting anything that “…expresses views on government policy… the legal system, political issues… ongoing court cases” regardless of whether the intention was to be humorous or ironic.
Conclusion
While many lawyers remain on Twitter and continue to post, the simple message from the regulators appears to be: when it comes to lawyers posting on social media, the party’s over.
It’s not just that Twitter (or X as I suppose it should be referred) is not the forum it used to be, and is a far darker place to inhabit.
More generally, after a decade where it seemed that almost anything goes on social media, the regulators are watching.
Alexander Chandler KC
7 November 2024
Family Brief 