On marketing, mere puffs, and misrepresentation.

IS was a director of a small law firm. The firm regularly put up Facebook posts suggesting that it was acting in civil, family and criminal proceedings. The majority of these posts gave the impression of positive outcomes in Court.

This was of course perfectly reasonable.

However, there were 4 posts that caught the attention of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority:

Post 1: "Great result at Cambridge Magistrates Court! So pleased and proud to be able to represent our client, who eventually managed to prove her innocence!!!"

Post 2: "Double win today! Watford Family Court – successfully fought and suspended a prohibited steps order preventing a mother to leave the jurisdiction with the children. Milton Keynes County Court – successfully defended a set-aside application. The other party banned from making any further applications. Well done Irina Schwab and Adrian Schwab!"

Post 3: "Colchester County Court, 2nd January 2018. Successful eviction hearing on behalf of a landlord by Schwab & Co"

Post 4: "And another great result in Romford County Court by Adrian Schwab – a successful “set aside” application for a client who realised too late that he had a CCJ against him"

---

As it turned out, there were discrepancies between these posts, and the hearing lists for the days on which the posts were put up. In IS's own words:

"Yeah, it’s probably marketing or going there for other purposes and erm or visiting and it’s just pure marketing"

"They are incorrect, they are marketing like showing off if you want – that – well I’m, I’m doing some sort of activity and I’m being active."

For Post 3 in particular, IS admitted that she had not attended Court and was not part of that hearing. IS also admitted that some of the posts could be seen as misleading, if relating to an occasion when nobody from her firm had attended Court.

IS agreed that in respect of the Facebook posts, she had failed to act with integrity. For these transgressions, along with other regulatory breaches, IS was suspended from practice for 6 months.

---

Look, I am sympathetic to the pressures faced to market and sell and bring in the work. I get it. And I understand the fear that comes when there's not enough work coming in.

I understand why some of us might be motivated to "fake it till you make it", to keep up with the Joneses, and to talk a good game.

But - ours is an honourable profession. Those of us called to the Bar in Singapore make a declaration that we will "truly and honestly conduct [ourselves] in the practice of an advocate and solicitor according to the best of my knowledge and ability and according to law". Is this consistent with deceptive marketing? I think not.

In my next post, I will share further reflections on social media marketing for lawyers, and potential pitfalls.