header-logo header-logo

19 November 2015
Issue: 7678 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lawyers & the threat of social media

Some 85% of US and UK corporate counsel at Fortune 1000 companies fear social media could push a minor problem into a major crisis.

However, these concerns do not necessarily translate into action.

The lawyers believe social media poses a risk to what 91% of them described as their company’s greatest asset, its reputation, but do not believe there is a legal risk and tend not to become heavily involved in planning for mitigation and response.

That’s according to a report by media managers Weber Shandwick and KRC Research, Social Media’s Role in Crisis Management: A Call for Greater Legal Vigilance. It is based on a survey of 100 senior and mid-level corporate counsel (50 in the US and 50 in the UK) who advise on risk, reputation and brand protection.

“Our research suggests that in-house lawyers are underestimating an important area of risk,” says Rod Clayton, co-head of global crisis and issues at Weber Shandwick.

“Social media has its own set of challenges, and legal counsel should ask themselves if they’re ready to address what can be powerful threats to reputation.”

Only one in five counsel have experienced a social media crisis, and those who have reported that the outcome was a decline in employee morale and retention rather than a specific legal issue. Only half the lawyers had undergone training on the impact social media has on their company. Only one in five counsel said the legal department was “very” involved in social media crisis planning, and counsel spent an average of 2.4% of their own time on the topic. Less than half said their company would be “excellent” or “very good” at responding to a social media problem.

The report offers guidelines for in-house counsel to more effectively engage in social media crisis preparation and response in order to safeguard corporate reputations from digital attacks.

Issue: 7678 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll