LoginSubscribe Now
Follow Us
Sign up to our free newsletter
Solicitors Journal LogoInforming the legal profession since 1856

Find the knowledge you need from the SJ library of over 20,000 legal articles

Search now
Solicitors Journal Logo
  • Legal News
  • Opinion
  • Features
  • Practice Notes
  • Business
  • International
  • Court Reports
  • AI Search
  • Digital Edition
  • Subscription Options
  • Advertise with Us
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • FAQ
    • Guide to Authors
Solicitors Journal

Informing the legal profession since 1856.

Follow us

Topics

  • Legal News
  • Opinion
  • Features
  • Practice Notes
  • Business
  • International
  • Court Reports

About

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise with Us
  • FAQ
  • Guide to Authors

Subscribe

  • Subscription Options
  • Digital Edition
  • Free Newsletter

Editorial

editorial@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

Subscriptions

subscriptions@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

Advertising

Advertise with usadvertising@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

© 2026 Solicitors Journal in partnership with the International In-house Counsel Journal

ISSN 0038-1047  ·  Images: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors

Terms and ConditionsCookie PolicyPrivacy PolicyPLS Clear logoCopyright & permissions
Susan HumbleSusan Humble

Partner, RIAA Barker Gillette

Quotation Marks
We knew what the score was likely to be if we let our emotions run away with us online

Being measured

20 Jan 2021Opinion
Share:
Being measured

By Susan Humble

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

Related Topics

  • Risk & Compliance
  • Regulators

Latest Articles

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|PLS LogoCopyright & permissions
MoJ proposes needs-based cohabitation law reform
Solicitors Journal

MoJ proposes needs-based cohabitation law reform

The Ministry of Justice outlines major cohabitation reform proposals, introducing a needs-based framework with key uncertainties ahead
Opinion23 Jun 2026
Inside the growing judgement gap
Solicitors Journal

Inside the growing judgement gap

As AI spreads in law firms, experienced human judgement is quietly disappearing
Feature23 Jun 2026
Employment tribunal backlog reaches crisis point
Solicitors Journal

Employment tribunal backlog reaches crisis point

The employment tribunal backlog has surged to unprecedented levels, with claim numbers exceeding historical records
News23 Jun 2026
Bank of India v Firestar Diamond FZE: High Court holds Nirav Modi liable on personal guarantee despite FEMA non-compliance
Solicitors Journal

Bank of India v Firestar Diamond FZE: High Court holds Nirav Modi liable on personal guarantee despite FEMA non-compliance

High Court finds Nirav Modi's personal guarantee enforceable despite absence of RBI consent under FEMA.
Court Report23 Jun 2026
Novo Nordisk v BT and others: High Court approves dynamic blocking order targeting counterfeit Ozempic websites
Solicitors Journal

Novo Nordisk v BT and others: High Court approves dynamic blocking order targeting counterfeit Ozempic websites

High Court approves dynamic blocking to combat counterfeit Ozempic and Wegovy websites.
Court Report23 Jun 2026
Songa v Gardsea Shipping: banking days clause did not extend ship sale payment deadline to Hawaii time
Solicitors Journal

Songa v Gardsea Shipping: banking days clause did not extend ship sale payment deadline to Hawaii time

Commercial Court rules Norwegian escrow payment deadline governed by local midnight, not Hawaii time.
Court Report23 Jun 2026
Aina Khan Law Limited v Legal Ombudsman: Court of Appeal restores £15,692 award over vulnerable client failings
Solicitors Journal

Aina Khan Law Limited v Legal Ombudsman: Court of Appeal restores £15,692 award over vulnerable client failings

Court of Appeal finds High Court applied excessive legalism to reviewing the Legal Ombudsman's decision.
Court Report23 Jun 2026
Deerns UK Ltd v VDC LHR11 Ltd: variable final payment date triggers statutory scheme, TCC rules
Solicitors Journal

Deerns UK Ltd v VDC LHR11 Ltd: variable final payment date triggers statutory scheme, TCC rules

TCC finds consultancy contract's moveable payment deadline non-compliant with the Construction Act 1996.
Court Report23 Jun 2026
Post-Brexit barriers hamper professional mobility
Solicitors Journal

Post-Brexit barriers hamper professional mobility

Ten years after the Brexit referendum, young professionals face new challenges that limit their career prospects across the UK and EU.
News23 Jun 2026
AI lawyer achieves historic court win
Solicitors Journal

AI lawyer achieves historic court win

A freelancer wins a court case aided by a regulated AI lawyer, marking a legal milestone
News23 Jun 2026
Law firms losing millions to tech
Solicitors Journal

Law firms losing millions to tech

Legal tech investments are costing UK law firms almost £2 million annually in unbillable hours lost to inefficiency
News23 Jun 2026
Swiss Centre Limited v HMRC: Upper Tribunal denies £33.5m corporation tax deduction for NAMA-era group payment
Solicitors Journal

Swiss Centre Limited v HMRC: Upper Tribunal denies £33.5m corporation tax deduction for NAMA-era group payment

Upper Tribunal upholds denial of £33.5m deduction for payments made to NAMA following financial crisis.
Court Report23 Jun 2026
Harnoczi v Hitchings: council tax deletion appeal fails on lateness and absent expert evidence
Solicitors Journal

Harnoczi v Hitchings: council tax deletion appeal fails on lateness and absent expert evidence

Beer KC dismisses council tax deletion appeal for lateness and absent independent professional survey evidence.
Court Report23 Jun 2026
SJ Interview: Chris Spelman
Solicitors Journal

SJ Interview: Chris Spelman

Chris Spelman is a partner in DWF's London dispute resolution team, specialising in financial services litigation and investigations, whistleblowing matters, and class action, securities and...
Interview1 Jun 2026
When the rules can't keep up
Solicitors Journal

When the rules can't keep up

From Westminster to the courts, the rules are being written faster than they can settle
Foreword1 Jun 2026