Are solicitors allowed to do this on social media?

[AdInfinitum12]

I'll preface this with "not my business, just curious."
I needed a solicitor last year and a friend recommended I use someone they knew. I follow my friend on Twitter and this week they retweeted a tweet from another account that caught my eye. It's the personal account of the solicitor I used, although they've tried to hide who they are by blocking their face out of pictures and not putting their name up its fairly obvious if you've met the person.

I suppose they're relying on nobody stumbling across their page. They make no reference of their profession or employer, but do reference smoking weed, some fairly provocative photos (nothing explicit, just suggestive), comments about porn sites they're looking at.

Like I said, none of my business, if I looked half as good as her I'd probably feel a lot more free spirited lol but I suppose I envisaged solicitors having to be super careful with that sort of thing online. If she was reported are their repercussions from the law society/employer or have we reached a "live and let live" age with all this stuff?

If it’s not a criminal act they can do what they like.

It’s up to their employer to decide if they are bringing their firm into disrepute.

Is she breaking the law. If not no worries if she is the SRA would look into it

As a lawyer I'd say it's a bit of both. So certainly in any law firm I've worked at its always been made clear that if you are on social media, you should be very careful about what you post and share, and you certainly shouldn't publicise that you work for Wright Hassall LLP (this is my favourite 'sounds like a made up name but is actually a law firm' 🤣). There is also a professional expectation that solicitors show certain standards of behaviour...so having a Tinder profile or Insta account with provocative poses probably ok. Having an OnlyFans account probably not.

That said it's all a bit of a grey area now, I remember many years ago solicitors weren't allowed to advertise their firms, and there were right regulations around what you could call firms too, but that's alll changed. As with anything it depends whether someone complains for something posted on social media to end up being drawn to the attention of the relevant regulatory bodies.

Tight regulations. They may also have been right too.

I guess the recreational drug use is against the law but its only weed.

I've seen a few threads similar about teachers and people hold them to a higher standard, was curious with solicitors. I suppose you only ever think of them as bring professional all the time.

Wright Hassall LLP. Brilliant!

Re-reading my OP and spotted I used "their" instead of "there." I'll go hide in a cupboard now. I'm so pedantic usually.

The weed is illegal but I can't imagine you'd be struck off for it. Other than that, it's fine. Solicitors are completely and totally entitled to watch porn, post provocative photos and have social media - especially anonymised social media. Why wouldn't they be allowed to?

It's like when people think teachers aren't allowed to go to the pub at the weekend in case a student sees them with a pint.

At my firm pretty sure I would be fired or at least a disciplinary for this. Particularly with illegal activity (smoking weed). Can't see how anyone would think this was a good idea anyway.

It’s not the smartest thing for a solicitor to do. The SRA’s remit extends to “offensive” communications made via solicitors’ personal social media accounts as well as via work emails. If her account can be linked to her profession (e.g by googling her name) and there is a risk that what she is doing would demonstrate a lack of integrity/undermine public confidence in the legal profession then she could be on thin ice (though whether the SRA would take any action is another matter). At my firm it would likely be a breach of our social media policy with possible disciplinary consequences.

They can be reported to the Law Society and face being struck off. My son practices law and was warned when he was accepted into his degree that any criminal convictions would prevent him from practicing law.The university put this in writing to them so presumably had issues in the past.

If she was reported are their repercussions from the law society/employer or have we reached a "live and let live" age with all this stuff?

Are YOU planning on reporting her?

From my perspective I wouldn't care but a pp has said they'd be fired for it. I suppose that's why I'm asking.. teachers, solicitors etc, society holds them to a higher standard with this stuff than your plumbers or milkman. I wondered if there was a basis for it nowadays. I know the law society or whatever its called is strict on certain things and employers can be funny about things they deem "bringing the firm into disrepute."

Not in the slightest. I'm in the "live and let live" camp. I was just curious because I know working in law can have strict regulations. I used her services last year and couldn't fault her professionalism on the job.

I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, from your OP that their name wasn't on the account (because their face is blanked out and I somehow read that as it being an anonymous account). If so, that's very different from what PP have said about it being linked to the profession by googling them and their name. If I was incorrect on that assumption (which I accept that I absolutely may well be because I pretty much invented that it was in the OP when it wasn't) then, yeah, she could get into trouble for it.

Quite surprised by this - most people are really careful with SM, and their employment contract is likely to refer to bringing the firm into disrepute.

The SRA (regulatory body, not the Law Society anymore) are generally more concerned with issues about dishonesty so even very minor crimes which involve dishonesty type offences could be treated more strictly than a violent offence. That's because of holding client money, and if you read the reports of the disciplinary hearings most seem to be about client funds.

No, you were correct. Its anonymous. I only stumbled on it as we have a mutual friend and they retweeted something of hers. Although its anonymous its most definitely her, I wonder if that's where the line blurs.. if a client found it would she get into trouble even though they've tried to keep it anonymous?

@legalseagulls I love that you have a go to made up/not made up name. I always use Kreiner, Kreiner, Owen and Orr. Bonus points if you know where that’s from!

anyway. I think if her social media is anonymised, and it’s suggestive not explicit, it’s probably ok. Pretty damn stupid, and certainly ill advised, but probably not punishable too heavily.

Let's be honest, law firms have the best names.

Mishcon de Reya and Memery Crystal both sound like exotic dancers. Fried Frank is funny if you pronounce Fried how you think you should. Skadden is fine...unless you look at names 2, 4 and 5 in the list. Womble Bond Dickinson sounds inappropriate but I'm not sure why. My DH thinks an Akin Gump sounds like an injury and Boodle Hatfield sounds like a dog...

I can't believe these are real names!