Solicitor Suspended for Posting False Court Claims on Social Media

A solicitor has been suspended from practice for six months after admitting to publishing false and misleading information about court appearances on their firm’s Facebook page over the course of a year.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard that the practitioner had posted multiple fabricated claims about court representations that never occurred, in what the solicitor described as “pure marketing” and “showing off.”

The misleading social media posts included fictitious success stories at various courts, with specific claims such as: “Great result at Cambridge Magistrates Court! So pleased and proud to be able to represent our client, who eventually managed to prove her innocence!!!”

Other false claims referenced “double wins” at Watford Family Court and Milton Keynes County Court, as well as a “successful eviction hearing on behalf of a landlord” at Colchester County Court. The solicitor admitted that neither they nor anyone from their firm had attended the named courts on the dates specified.

During the proceedings, the solicitor acknowledged the posts were incorrect and apologized to the tribunal, though maintained they had not deliberately or knowingly breached regulatory rules.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) asserted that the social media deception constituted breaches of Principle 2, which requires solicitors to “act with integrity,” and Principle 6, requiring solicitors to “behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services.”

The tribunal also upheld additional regulatory breaches, including operating without SRA authorization, maintaining a client account improperly, and failing to nominate a money laundering reporting officer (MLRO).

Notably, the SRA did not allege dishonesty in this case—an important distinction, as proven dishonesty typically results in striking a solicitor from the roll. Instead, the tribunal determined that the solicitor’s regulatory failures stemmed primarily from a lack of awareness of requirements rather than deliberate avoidance of oversight.

In reviewing the case, the SDT consulted its Guidance Note on Sanctions, assessing culpability, harm, and both aggravating and mitigating factors. The tribunal initially rejected a proposed settlement involving only a fine, ultimately imposing a six-month suspension and a two-year restriction order preventing the solicitor from managing any law firm. The practitioner was also ordered to pay £15,000 in SRA costs.

This case highlights the growing intersection between professional obligations and social media use in the legal profession. While digital platforms offer solicitors valuable promotional, networking, and marketing opportunities, they also present significant ethical risks that can have serious professional consequences.

Legal professionals are increasingly reminded that the boundaries between personal and professional use of social media can become blurred, yet the same ethical standards apply in online environments as in traditional practice settings. The SRA has published specific guidance on offensive communications regarding inappropriate use of emails and social media platforms.

The case comes at a time of expanding SRA enforcement powers. The regulator’s internal fining authority has recently increased from £2,000 to £25,000—a development that has prompted the Law Society to call for additional transparency and accountability safeguards to prevent potentially excessive penalties.

The Law Society continues to offer resources to help solicitors navigate these ethical challenges, including practice notes on social media usage and guidance on recognizing and handling difficult professional situations. These resources form part of the support available to over 200,000 solicitors who are members of the professional body.

This disciplinary action serves as a stark reminder of the serious consequences of breaching the SRA Principles and the high ethical standards expected of legal practitioners, regardless of the communication medium.