'Big conversation' needed on social networking
A US judge denied a lawyer continuance of trial after the latter’s Facebook entry revealed he was absent from court because he was out partying and had not suffered a bereavement as claimed, an International Bar Association (IBA) report on social networking recounts.
Elsewhere, the Supreme Court of South Korea refused to reappoint judges after they posted controversial remarks on a social networking site, while in the UK a juror was jailed for online activity during a trial.
The IBA surveyed 60 law societies and bar associations across 47 jurisdictions to examine the profession’s attitudes to social networking.
More than 90% of respondents said there was a 'need for guidelines’, while almost 95% said jurors should receive 'specific instructions from judges limiting their online communications and use of online social networking sites'.
Vice-chair of the IBA art, cultural institutions and heritage law committee Mark Stephens said that the report was the beginning of a 'big conversation’ that needs to take place at the highest levels. He said: 'The basic principles of openness and justice and fairness that apply to every legal system on the planet must apply in an online world. The bars and law societies are going to have to set the rules and constraints that work for their systems.’
Comments
Social media is an opportunity for the profession
That conversation has already started but there certainly is a generational gap in using social media.
The Paul Chamber's joke trial that had been covered in many law news publications and I myself mentioned in my last week's review column (please pardon the shameless plug!) is not the first of its kind. What is at stake is how we conduct ourselves and where the personal enters the professional. This is the very same argument embraced by feminists and many other political and philosophical movements, albeit 40 years ago.
We certainly need increased participation in social media by the profession but the boundaries of professional conduct must be clearly defined. Having worked in the HR end of the business sector, I personally know that most medium to large companies have now incorporated conduct on social media as part of their overall 'business conduct policy'. Law firms and the judiciary need to follow suit where it isn't already the case. The potential for ABS and Direct Access makes it all the more worthwhile for Barristers or those seeking pupillage to have an active social media presence. For solicitors, established or developing, a core group of followers opens up informal referral potential, networking opportunities as well as communicating one's professional Philosophy.
The cases highlighted in the Gazette article should not deter the profession from engaging with the new media. Being British does not make us immune from the sort of behaviour implied above but I strongly feel that a very capable minority have already embraced social networking and doing rather well out of it. I know of a number of smaller firms who follow our Twitter account maintaining exemplary presence and have been truly utilising the online tools to promote business. Ultimately, it is about business and profit. Don't be put off!
Big conversation.
A big waste of time.
If you are incapable of employing basic levels of common sense do not use social media. If you are so capable, fine.
Conversation over.