‘A bad career decision’: Inside the fallout from TikTok graduate firing

Just three weeks into practising law, the Melbourne-based junior lawyer took to social media to share an unfiltered glimpse into the reality of life after admission – but what began as a candid reflection on the pressures of junior practice quickly escalated into a debate over where lawyers’ professional obligations end and their freedom to speak begins.

Curukovski had been admitted as a solicitor just over a month earlier when, on 3 August, she posted a TikTok discussing what she described as the lack of freedom that comes with life as a junior lawyer.

The video, which had amassed approximately 600,000 views at the time of publication, quickly struck a chord with viewers as Curukovski detailed the demands she had encountered only weeks into her legal career.

“There [are] constant deadlines, pressure, the working after hours, doing all these CPD events, reading extra books,” Curukovski said via her TikTok page.

“It’s like I did seven years of all of this to just go back and do the same thing; there’s no freedom.

“You barely take a lunch break, you’re overworked and underpaid for the amount of study you put into all these years into becoming a lawyer. I can’t even have my puppy with me at home because I’m in the office five days a week.”

VIEW ALL

Just four days after posting the video, Curukovski returned to TikTok with an update that changed the trajectory of the story, revealing that her employer had found the post and terminated her employment – despite her maintaining that she had never intended to bring the firm into disrepute.

“I got fired from my job as a lawyer because I posted a TikTok that got a lot of traction about the experience of junior lawyers,” Curukovski said.

“I officially received my termination letter yesterday at around 9am. It was effective immediately, and I just want to preface this by saying I didn’t make that TikTok to put the firm in disrepute.

“I haven’t actually put the firm in disrepute; I didn’t mention names, I didn’t mention client files, I didn’t mention the firm and the name of the business, I didn’t mention anything.”

Even after being urged by the firm to remove the video, Curukovski stood her ground and refused to budge, leaving the TikTok online as it continued to gain traction and surpass 700,000 views.

In the wake of the controversy, the legal profession has been divided, with a wave of public commentary ranging from sympathy for Curukovski’s position to criticism of her decision to post the video in the first place.

Speaking to Lawyers Weekly, Michael Byrnes, an employment, workplace relations and WHS partner at Swaab, has unpacked the controversy, arguing that the incident raises important questions not only about junior lawyers’ working conditions but also about the responsibilities that come with publicly discussing an employer online.

‘Bad career decision’

While Byrnes stressed that burnout and dissatisfaction across the profession are important issues that warrant serious discussion, he viewed Curukovski’s TikTok as a poor career decision given the circumstances surrounding the post.

“The TikTok post was misconceived. It was a bad career decision,” he said.

“While issues of burnout and dissatisfaction in the legal profession are important and should be openly canvassed and carefully considered, this post raised specific grievances about her employer on a public platform (TikTok) after she had been in her first legal job for a very short period (three to four weeks).”

Rather than strengthening the case for better working conditions, Byrnes argued that the TikTok’s more minor grievances ultimately overshadowed its central message, weakening its effectiveness as a critique of the realities facing early-career lawyers.

“Some of the complaints made were trivial and detracted from what was presumably the intended message. It was not, with respect, a compelling critique of the working conditions of early-career lawyers generally,” he said.

While stressing his support for junior lawyers, he argued that publicly criticising a current employer just weeks into the role – and doing so on a platform as public as TikTok – ultimately crossed a professional line.

“I always want to be supportive of junior lawyers; however, in this instance, given what was said, which included specific negative commentary about her employer (even though she sensibly did not name them), the fact the post was put on a public platform (TikTok), and that she had only been in the job for a very short period (three to four weeks), the decision to terminate her employment was appropriate,” he said.

Where does free speech end?

The controversy has raised a broader question for lawyers navigating an increasingly public professional landscape: can practitioners speak honestly about their experiences without putting their employment at risk?

While lawyers should be able to speak candidly about the challenges of legal practice, Byrnes cautioned that freedom comes with limits when the commentary turns towards a current employer.

“Lawyers should be free to openly discuss the realities and challenges of working in the legal profession on social media, but, in doing so, they need to be careful not to disparage their current employer,” he said.

For Byrnes, the answer is not to silence lawyers, but to ensure they understand the distinction between discussing the profession more broadly and publicly airing grievances against the firm that employs them.

“There are ways of canvassing these issues without airing specific grievances about their current employer. It is imperative that clients and confidential information not be disclosed,” he said.

Even when a firm is not explicitly named, Byrnes warned that lawyers need to consider how easily their workplace can be identified on platforms such as LinkedIn, where their professional profile can make the connection between their commentary and employer readily apparent.

“It is also prudent to not identify (either directly or indirectly) your current employer. On a platform such as LinkedIn, where your current employment is inextricably linked to the content on your profile, extra caution needs to be exercised when posting,” he said.

Will junior lawyers be afraid to speak up?

Beyond the circumstances of Curukovski’s dismissal, the controversy has sparked concern about what message the incident could send to other junior lawyers considering whether to speak openly about their own experiences.

Byrnes warned that the controversy should not silence junior lawyers from speaking candidly about their experiences, but stressed that publicly disparaging a current employer could push them into territory where their employment is at risk.

“This situation should not discourage junior lawyers speaking openly about their general experience in the profession,” he said.

“They do need to be careful, however, to not end up publicly disparaging their current employer. That may put them in territory where they are putting their employment at risk.”

At the heart of the debate, Byrnes said, are two distinct issues that should not be conflated: the appropriateness of criticising an employer and the broader question of whether junior lawyers are facing unacceptable working conditions.

“Some of the debate on this TikTok post has conflated two separate issues,” he said.

“One issue is the appropriateness of criticising a current employer (even if unnamed) on social media. The other is the issue of working conditions of junior lawyers in the profession.”

Byrnes argued that the fallout from the situation should not force a choice between professional accountability and meaningful reform, with the profession able to address junior lawyers’ concerns while still maintaining clear boundaries around public criticism of employers.

“The fact there may be negative repercussions from actively disparaging a current employer on social media does not mean the profession is not open to a serious consideration of issues relating to the working conditions of junior lawyers,” he said.

What should firms learn?

The incident has also put law firms under the spotlight, highlighting the need to ensure lawyers understand where the boundaries lie when using social media, particularly as platforms such as TikTok increasingly blur the lines between professional and personal identities.

Byrnes stressed that Curukovski’s experience should serve as a reminder for firms to give their lawyers a clear roadmap for navigating social media, backed by practical training and guidance on where those professional boundaries lie.

“Law firms, like all employers, should have a social media policy in place and offer training and guidance on how that policy operates in practice,” he said.

Rather than viewing lawyers’ social media presence as a risk, Byrnes said it can reflect a creative, curious and engaged profession, provided lawyers remain mindful of the professional boundaries that come with having a public voice.

“Lawyers on social media are not to be feared – indeed it often reflects a creative, curious and engaged mindset. There are, however, boundaries that need to be observed,” he said.

With social media now well into its second decade, Byrnes said lawyers should be familiar with the established principles governing what they can say publicly while still meeting their obligations to employers.

“These lessons are not new – social media has been around for over 15 years and there are now well-established principles about the balance between free speech and duties owed to an employer,” he said.