Published on:
8 Apr 2022
3
min read
Extracted from Singapore Law Gazette, July 2017
On social media postings, and convictions.
Let's start with a thought experiment. Imagine this scenario.
You are not a violent person by nature. However, one day, someone says something, perhaps about a loved one, that causes you to snap. You hit the person.
You are eventually charged in Court. You engage a lawyer - a trusted advisor - to represent you. You decide to plead guilty. Your lawyer makes an impassioned plea of mitigation on your behalf. A sentence is meted out, which you consider to be fair.
The next day, you see a news article about your conviction. Ok, that's not ideal, but there's nothing you can do about it.
You then see your lawyer reposting the news article on social media, expressing gratitude for being given the opportunity to represent you, and making reference to the effectiveness of their mitigation plea.
How would you feel?
***
Lawyers owe to their clients fiduciary duties - a duty of utmost good faith, which requires lawyers to put their clients' interests above their own.
We often see news articles on individuals being found guilty of certain offences. The articles often identify the individual, the lawyer representing them, and may set out some parts of the mitigation plea.
Sometimes, the lawyer ("Counsel") who represented the client reposts, on social media, the article (which names the client who has been found guilty).
I am uncomfortable with this, because I am concerned about whether such posts are in the client's best interests.
***
First, for the client who has been convicted, what are their interests?
I suggest that (among others) they would prefer to have as few people as possible know about their conviction.¹
Second, are such posts from Counsel in the client's interests?
I suggest that every social media repost of the article rebroadcasts the news of their conviction, and potentially increases the number of people who find out about the conviction. Counsel's social media post would add to the breadth of dissemination, and it might not be in the client's interests for Counsel to spread the news further.²
I therefore suggest that when Counsel puts up such social media posts, this is often not what the client wants.³
***
I end with a caveat. I am not talking about cases where the client has been charged with an offence, but is eventually found to be not guilty. Such cases should be SHOUTED from the rooftops as the client has been vindicated. In such cases, both the client and Counsel may well have a common interest in publicising the outcome far and wide.
Disclaimer:
The content of this article is intended for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
¹ I am not suggesting that accused persons should have the right to withhold, from the public, the fact that they have been convicted of an offence. My observations are purely focused on the unique relationship between Counsel and the client, and whether Counsel's social media efforts undermine the client's interests.
² I have no doubt that Counsel believes that they have done a good job with their mitigation plea, which they believe has reduced the sentence that would have otherwise been meted out. When they post on social media, they believe that they are sharing a win which is worthy of kudos. I have no quarrel with that. But my question remains as to whether such further dissemination is in the client's interests.
³ In the event that the client has specifically instructed Counsel that Counsel can go ahead to post about the case on social media - I take no issue. I can envisage the possibility of the client wanting Counsel to share his side of the story.
Defining Your Social Media Policy
