Login
Unless you’re speaking on behalf of a firm, you should be able to have your views
The idea that lawyers should be considered brand ambassadors for their employers at all times would be perverse, argues Maurice Blackburn partner Josh Bornstein.
Jerome Doraisamy
Speaking recently with Lawyers Weekly, Mr Bornstein expressed concern that employment contracts may serve to exert control insofar as to undermine one’s right to engage publicly.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
In the second half of that conversation, he said that each person has their own views about politics, religion and other matters, and that unless one is purporting to speak on behalf of their employer, the average punter should be able to distinguish between personal views and those of one’s employer.
“The idea that we are somehow confused in the public mind, that we’re all perceived as brand ambassadors at all times, when we allow views being ascribed to our employer is just perversion,” he posited.
“The idea that you have to, at all times in your life, not say or do anything that’s controversial, that lest your employer suffer the consequence for that, I think, is an unfortunate development in a culture driven by, I think, an obsession with a corporate brand management and corporate values.”
Such values, Mr Bornstein continued, are “crowding out our right” to simply be human beings.
“When we sign an employment contract, we don’t give away and trade off our humanity. We provide our labour, not our right to participate in democracy, and that should never be asked of us when we go to work,” he said.
“People are intelligent enough to know different people in any organisation will hold different views, and to distinguish between the views of one person, albeit a prominent person, and the values or views of the whole organisation.”
Given this, the idea of workplace “policies [that] are so broadly crafted they effectively mean that an employee has to, whether at work or not, comply” results in a scenario whereby lawyers are “one errant tweet away” from facing the same disciplinary consequences as Israel Folau, Mr Bornstein surmised.
“When you dive into the detail of the policies, [they] say, ‘Our values are responsibility and transparency, integrity, accountability at all times’,” he said.
“Now, Jesus Christ could not comply, or if he was a modern-day member of the labour market, because he would be hauled up for being controversial, in expressing views about helping poor people, for example, and then be hauled up into a disciplinary process, the subject of a workplace investigation, and then possibly sacked.”
Mr Bornstein’s comments follow recent reporting by Lawyers Weekly that, according to Swaab partner Michael Byrnes, unlike public figures such as Israel Folau, lawyers have freedom to post on social media to the extent that it isn’t inappropriate or reflects poorly on one’s legal employer. Shine Lawyers legal consultant Samantha Mangwana subsequently said that all lawyers must show restraint on social media, especially partners, as their conduct can have a reputational impact upon the firm.
Mr Byrnes also spoke to Lawyers Weekly about the extent to which lawyers can publicly disclose their mental health issues on social media.
