It’s an incredibly wired world we live in. Over 82% of the adult American population has at least one social networking profile, and in a single minute we’ll witness 293,000 status updates posted to Facebook, more than 360,000 tweets on Twitter, and roughly 400 hours of video uploaded to YouTube. And while lawyers have yet to catch up with the social media usage of the general population, the rate at which lawyers use social networking platforms has been climbing steadily every year. In-house lawyers are no different; according to a 2017 survey conducted by Zeughauser Group and Greentarget, 73% of corporate counsel report using social media sites like LinkedIn and Facebook for professional reasons.

But perhaps the most important question in an era in which attorneys are just one viral post or inflammatory tweet away from the unemployment line or even the disciplinary board, is whether in-house lawyers are using social media ethically and responsibly. As with their counterparts in private firms and government entities, there is no shortage of “cautionary tales for the Digital Age” originating from corporate legal departments.

Take, for example, Hayley Geftman-Gold, who in October 2017, seemed to have it all. The then-41-year-old Columbia law grad had worked in BigLaw and then as vice president of business and legal affairs for MTV Networks before landing her job with CBS’ legal department as vice president and senior counsel of strategic transactions. But in the wake of the tragic mass shooting at Las Vegas’ Mandalay Bay Resort. Geftman-Gold found herself posting on Facebook with some friends about the massacre. She proclaimed that she was “actually not even sympathetic” to the victims because “country music fans often are Republican gun toters.” She also referred to Republicans as “Repugs” who “wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered.” A screenshot of her post identified Geftman-Gold as a VP and senior counsel at CBS, and her employer was swift to react. Within a day, she was fired, with the network issuing a statement saying Geftman-Gold had “violated the standards of our company,” and that “her views as expressed on social media are deeply unacceptable to all of us at CBS.”

But losing a prestigious in-house job and being at the epicenter of a high-profile controversy was just the beginning for Geftman-Gold. Soon after her firing, she reported to the New York Police Department that she’d received online threats and harassment. In addition, a group called Citizens for Judicial Reform initiated an online petition calling for the New York State Bar Association to take professional disciplinary action against Geftman-Gold over her “reprehensible and despicable remarks,” questioning whether she was capable of remaining professional in response to a national tragedy. Within just days, the petition had over 12,000 signatures.

Geftman-Gold may have been the latest in-house cautionary tale about social media missteps, but she’s definitely not the only one. In June 2016, Carolyn Tanner had been general counsel to the Nevada Public Utilities Commission for nearly three years. But Tanner also led something of a double life: unbeknownst to others, she also maintained an active Twitter account under the handle “@DixieRaeSparx” (https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/puc-general-counsel-out-after-tweet-under-pseudonym/). Under this pseudonym, Tanner/Dixie tweeted about a number of issues and parties appearing before the commission at which she worked. One of these issues was “net metering,” a tariff under which homeowners who installed rooftop solar systems could receive a credit for the excess electricity they generate. The issue had been hotly contested before the PUC, with rooftop solar companies and net metering customers weighing in.

The “DixieRaeSparx” pseudonym remained a secret until Tanner was “outed” by community activist Fred Voltz, who had done some Google sleuthing and linked Tanner to the ownership of the Twitter account (Tanner used the same picture on both her Twitter profile and her Facebook page). At a June 15, PUC meeting, Voltz dropped his bombshell about Tanner, her alter ego, and the online comments in which he said the PUC’s general counsel “was disparaging the rooftop solar companies, the net metering customers and the Bureau of Consumer Protection, while at the same time praising NV Energy, when the commission still had this matter pending before it.” Because the PUC operated as a quasi-judicial agency, Voltz added, Tanner’s comments may have violated judicial conduct rules prohibiting a judge or court staff from making statements that might impair the fairness of a matter pending before it.

By the next day, Tanner had resigned from the PUC, a move that she maintains had nothing to do with the revelations about her Twitter comments tweeted under a pseudonym. Insisting that her tweets were focused on other issues outside the purview of the PUC, Tanner simply said she was moving on to pursue new challenges and give the commission a chance for “a fresh perspective.” And while Tanner insisted that the timing of her departure and the controversy were coincidental, the next month a Las Vegas-based data center company, Switch, sued the PUC, Tanner, and NV Energy for $30 million claiming that Tanner’s improper communications had tainted the regulators’ decision to deny Switch the option of purchasing its power from sources other than NV Energy.

Beyond the loss of employment and negative publicity that characterize such cautionary tales, there can be disciplinary risks for in-house counsel as well for carelessness on social media. In November 2016, the Washington D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee became the first in the country to address the risk of creating “positional” conflicts when blogging, posting or tweeting about legal developments or even news, with its Ethics Opinion 370. When a lawyer advances one position online, but is called upon to argue the opposite on behalf of the corporation she works for, a “positional” conflict exists. For example, an in-house attorney for a health care provider or insurance company who expresses concern regarding the Affordable Care Act could find herself taking a position contrary to her client/employer. Even the most carefully crafted Twitter disclaimer is no substitute for simply exercising good judgment or restraint as a means of avoiding unemployment or a disciplinary complaint. And rank doesn’t always matter when it comes to social media missteps: in April 2015, Royal Bank of Scotland Chairman Rory Cullinan stepped down from his $10 million a year job shortly after a controversial series of Snapchat photos surfaced of the executive posting about “boring” meetings.

While social media platforms offer wonderful tools for a company’s messaging as well as for an in-house lawyer’s own professional development, attorneys wanting to avoid unpleasant attention from both the C-suite and from the disciplinary authorities should remember that ethical rules apply just as much to Facebook, Twitter and the like as they do to more traditional avenues of communication. Stop and think before venting about politics, religion, or even the goods or services of a company that might turn out to be a current or future business partner. In addition, be sure to avoid online discussions of pending cases, no matter how frustrated you might be with a judge’s ruling or with the behavior of opposing counsel. In the Digital Age, taking heat for a tweet has become an all too regular occurrence.

John G. Browning is a shareholder at Passman & Jones in Dallas, where he handles a wide variety of civil litigation in state and federal courts.