*/
In the digital age, where views are shared in real time and posts often reach far beyond family or friends, barristers and even pupils at the very beginning of their careers face growing challenges in navigating the boundaries between free expression online and professional responsibility. At this point in your career, your professional reputation, ethical conduct and legal responsibilities are also closely scrutinised.
This is not a new concern, but it is an enduring one. As Mark Neale, Director General of the Bar Standards Board (BSB), observed in a 2025 blog post, barristers, like all professionals, ‘carry responsibilities as well as rights’. Free speech is a human right. And while freedom of expression is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is a qualified right which must be balanced against other rights and freedoms.
Barristers operate within a professional framework defined by the core duties and rules in the BSB Handbook. Among those most relevant to public commentary and online engagement are:
Some of these may be engaged when barristers, even in a personal capacity, comment publicly on controversial or sensitive matters. CD3, CD6 and CD8 only apply when a barrister is practising or otherwise providing legal services. This is why the social media guidance concentrates on CD5 and rC8 which always apply and are most relevant to social media use. Although the number of reports relating to barristers’ use of social media fell in 2023/24, we have seen an increase in the proportion of those reports which relate to controversial social and political issues such as foreign policy or gender politics.
Following consultation on conduct in non-professional life, we issued revised Social Media Guidance, new Guidance on the Regulation of Non-Professional Conduct and revisions to BSB Handbook guidance in September 2023 for both registered and unregistered barristers. These documents provide greater clarity on when we will have a regulatory interest in such conduct, and when we will consider taking regulatory action.
The sort of conduct that we may be concerned with includes:
The Social Media Guidance also seeks to make clear that it is the manner in which barristers express their views that is more likely to concern us rather than the substance of that view (although the substance of a barrister’s view may also raise regulatory issues). In developing these guidance documents, we have sought to strike a balance between barristers’ human rights and their professional obligations under the BSB Handbook.
Barristers are central to the effective operation of the legal system, and it is important that our regulation serves to maintain public trust and confidence in them as individual practitioners, and in the profession. Barristers may also be held to a higher standard of conduct than other members of the public. The same duties and rules apply to pupils even though they are at the start of their careers. As future representatives of the Bar, their conduct is expected to reflect the same professional values from the outset.
The BSB’s 2023 Social Media Guidance highlights that posts made on personal accounts may still have regulatory consequences if they risk breaching professional standards. Getting into good practice regarding posting on social media cannot start early enough. In one 2021 incident, a pupil’s LinkedIn post about their involvement in a high-profile case sparked concern when it appeared to include sensitive client details and overstated their role. No disciplinary action followed, but the matter led chambers to issue internal reminders about Core Duty 6: client confidentiality must be maintained across all platforms, including social media.
Some pupils and junior barristers assume that posting in a personal capacity shields them from regulatory scrutiny. This is not the case. Where a barrister is identifiable – whether by name, affiliation, or subject matter – their conduct may affect perceptions of the profession.
In one case a barrister’s tweets were made outside court and not as legal submissions, they were controversial and deemed ‘seriously offensive’ and capable of undermining public trust in the justice system. The disciplinary tribunal found breaches of CD3, CD5, and CD8, underlining that how barristers speak matters just as much as what they say.
In Diggins v Bar Standards Board [2020] EWHC 467 (Admin), for example, the High Court upheld disciplinary action against a barrister whose offensive tweet – posted under their own name and in a personal capacity – were found to breach Core Duty 5 by undermining public trust and confidence in the profession. The court acknowledged the barrister’s Article 10 rights but made clear that expression incompatible with public trust carries professional consequences.
Here are some practical tips grounded in the BSB’s guidance and real cases:
Social media can be a powerful tool for barristers and pupils. It can be used to share knowledge, engage in debate, build your networks and your practice, and make the law more accessible. But it also carries risks. The profession, and wider justice system, relies on public trust and confidence, and that trust can be fragile. Professionalism doesn’t switch off when you log in. But by staying within the framework of the BSB Handbook, applying judgment, and engaging respectfully – even on controversial topics – you can strike the balance between freedom of speech and professional responsibility.
The Bar Standards Board regulates barristers and specialised legal services businesses in England and Wales in the public interest.
In the digital age, where views are shared in real time and posts often reach far beyond family or friends, barristers and even pupils at the very beginning of their careers face growing challenges in navigating the boundaries between free expression online and professional responsibility. At this point in your career, your professional reputation, ethical conduct and legal responsibilities are also closely scrutinised.
This is not a new concern, but it is an enduring one. As Mark Neale, Director General of the Bar Standards Board (BSB), observed in a 2025 blog post, barristers, like all professionals, ‘carry responsibilities as well as rights’. Free speech is a human right. And while freedom of expression is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is a qualified right which must be balanced against other rights and freedoms.
Barristers operate within a professional framework defined by the core duties and rules in the BSB Handbook. Among those most relevant to public commentary and online engagement are:
Some of these may be engaged when barristers, even in a personal capacity, comment publicly on controversial or sensitive matters. CD3, CD6 and CD8 only apply when a barrister is practising or otherwise providing legal services. This is why the social media guidance concentrates on CD5 and rC8 which always apply and are most relevant to social media use. Although the number of reports relating to barristers’ use of social media fell in 2023/24, we have seen an increase in the proportion of those reports which relate to controversial social and political issues such as foreign policy or gender politics.
Following consultation on conduct in non-professional life, we issued revised Social Media Guidance, new Guidance on the Regulation of Non-Professional Conduct and revisions to BSB Handbook guidance in September 2023 for both registered and unregistered barristers. These documents provide greater clarity on when we will have a regulatory interest in such conduct, and when we will consider taking regulatory action.
The sort of conduct that we may be concerned with includes:
The Social Media Guidance also seeks to make clear that it is the manner in which barristers express their views that is more likely to concern us rather than the substance of that view (although the substance of a barrister’s view may also raise regulatory issues). In developing these guidance documents, we have sought to strike a balance between barristers’ human rights and their professional obligations under the BSB Handbook.
Barristers are central to the effective operation of the legal system, and it is important that our regulation serves to maintain public trust and confidence in them as individual practitioners, and in the profession. Barristers may also be held to a higher standard of conduct than other members of the public. The same duties and rules apply to pupils even though they are at the start of their careers. As future representatives of the Bar, their conduct is expected to reflect the same professional values from the outset.
The BSB’s 2023 Social Media Guidance highlights that posts made on personal accounts may still have regulatory consequences if they risk breaching professional standards. Getting into good practice regarding posting on social media cannot start early enough. In one 2021 incident, a pupil’s LinkedIn post about their involvement in a high-profile case sparked concern when it appeared to include sensitive client details and overstated their role. No disciplinary action followed, but the matter led chambers to issue internal reminders about Core Duty 6: client confidentiality must be maintained across all platforms, including social media.
Some pupils and junior barristers assume that posting in a personal capacity shields them from regulatory scrutiny. This is not the case. Where a barrister is identifiable – whether by name, affiliation, or subject matter – their conduct may affect perceptions of the profession.
In one case a barrister’s tweets were made outside court and not as legal submissions, they were controversial and deemed ‘seriously offensive’ and capable of undermining public trust in the justice system. The disciplinary tribunal found breaches of CD3, CD5, and CD8, underlining that how barristers speak matters just as much as what they say.
In Diggins v Bar Standards Board [2020] EWHC 467 (Admin), for example, the High Court upheld disciplinary action against a barrister whose offensive tweet – posted under their own name and in a personal capacity – were found to breach Core Duty 5 by undermining public trust and confidence in the profession. The court acknowledged the barrister’s Article 10 rights but made clear that expression incompatible with public trust carries professional consequences.
Here are some practical tips grounded in the BSB’s guidance and real cases:
Social media can be a powerful tool for barristers and pupils. It can be used to share knowledge, engage in debate, build your networks and your practice, and make the law more accessible. But it also carries risks. The profession, and wider justice system, relies on public trust and confidence, and that trust can be fragile. Professionalism doesn’t switch off when you log in. But by staying within the framework of the BSB Handbook, applying judgment, and engaging respectfully – even on controversial topics – you can strike the balance between freedom of speech and professional responsibility.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, examines the forensic science underpinning hair drug testing, its evidential scope and limitations, and why it remains the gold standard for evidencing patterns of drug use in family proceedings
Developing a tech start-up demands a different definition of excellence to the Bar, says Saara Idelbi. The co-creator of Advocatr on entrepreneurship, AI advocacy training, and matching the thrill of a killer cross-examination
At the start of her term, Chair of the Bar 2026 Kirsty Brimelow KC set out a series of priorities for the year ahead. One of those priorities was children in the justice system
As the world becomes more digital, Barbara Vinagre Mota examines international research into the mental health consequences of judges’ exposure to graphic and immersive evidence, highlighting the importance of support systems
Reviewed by Daniel Barnett
James McNeill Whistler at Tate Britain until 27 September Rothko in Florence at Palazzo Strozzi until 23 August Reviewed by Stephen Cragg KC
