The Bar Standards Board is quite frankly completely wrong about this. It regulates everyone called to the Bar for life. Our freedom of speech, outside court, should only be constrained by the general law. That is how we “balance other rights” & where our “complete license [sic]” to speak out ends. - ThreadSky

giffordhead.co.uk • 18 days ago

The Bar Standards Board is quite frankly completely wrong about this. It regulates everyone called to the Bar for life. Our freedom of speech, outside court, should only be constrained by the general law. That is how we “balance other rights” & where our “complete license [sic]” to speak out ends.

Reposted from Catherine Baksi

Bar tsar sparks row by telling lawyers: watch what you say - in @TimesLaw www.thetimes.com/uk/law/artic...

Comments

giffordhead.co.uk•18 days ago

By all means, if a barrister is prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act then look at whether regulatory steps are needed to protect the public. But the idea that we should not say things which are not criminal, contempt of court or libel / slander is quite wrong.

giffordhead.co.uk•18 days ago

As I have said before, if freedom of speech only protects a right to temperate, respectful comment within the bounds of reasonableness then it is not true freedom of speech.

garyphillips.bsky.social•18 days ago

I would go somewhat further. If a member of the public would reasonably think you are offering a professional opinion, then there is a constraint on what you say and how you say it.

“Your common law wife will get everything when you go”

“It’s your choice whether or not you serve the Irish”

giffordhead.co.uk•18 days ago

I think the solution to this is anyone impacted by this sues for negligence and the Bar Standards Board then deals with it as a competency matter. Otherwise you will have vexatious claims like people reporting a barrister for saying that, eg, the UK does not have to follow the ICJ on Chagos etc etc.

garyphillips.bsky.social•18 days ago

You have duty of care problems with comments that are not focused on advice to an individual. It’s the legal equivalent of Andrew Wakefield. No parent whose child died of measles would be able to sue.

I think vexatious claims have to be firmly dismissed as vexatious.

giffordhead.co.uk•18 days ago

This a fair point. But I suppose it is really a competency point more than anything else. It’s a narrow band where advice is given broadcast and falls so below the standard expected that the regulator must step in.

giffordhead.co.uk•18 days ago

For example, if I post some confidential information from a client on BlueSky, it’s not really a free speech issue, even though what I am doing relates to speech.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply