From a prominent Big Law partner apologizing and deleting his Twitter account after tweeting “rot in hell” to a White House staffer, to a police department firing 13 officers for offensive Facebook posts, social media can cause a host of public relations problems for many enterprises.

But the possibility of going viral for all the wrong reasons hasn’t lead to law firms actively monitoring lawyers’ and staff’s social media activity. Instead, they are relying on social media policies that require posts maintain attorney-client privilege.

“I haven’t seen a huge upturn of auditing or monitoring [on] the law firm side of it,” said Dena Calo, vice chairwoman of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr’s labor and employment group. “At the same time, I don’t see that [monitoring] across the board with our clients. I think they are a little afraid of monitoring social media.”

That fear may be rooted in an employee claiming the company learned new facts about them through social media that led to discriminatory decisions, said K&L Gates labor, employment and workplace safety associate Erinn Rigney.

While employers such as law firms are mindful of their workers’ rights, most include social media conduct requirements in their employment contracts, lawyers contacted by Legaltech News said.

Rigney said a law firm’s social media policy must balance protecting “attorney–client privilege and client confidentiality … and you don’t want to run afoul of the national and state [employee] laws.”  

Generally, law firms’ social media policies remind staff and attorneys not to harass others online and not to share confidential information, Rigney said. A procedure that is easier to implement than monitoring all employees’ social media activity. 

“With a combined attorney and staff population of more than 1,800 individuals firmwide, it is impractical for us to monitor all social media activity,” wrote Fox Rothschild chief talent officer Jean Durling in an email.

Instead, all Fox Rothschild employees must adhere to the firm’s social media policy that requires, in part, they “do not adversely impact or create problems for the firm, firm employees or firm clients,” Durling wrote. Additionally, the firm advises that “everyone engage in ‘mindful posting’ and exercise caution when posting.”

Requiring that employees not post content that may damage the firm’s brand may be difficult to enforce in compliance with the National Labor Relations Act, which grants employees protected rights to discuss employment, K&L Gates’ Rigney noted.

Saul Ewing attorney Calo noted that an employee has the right to write on social media what they dislike in a work environment, although a company may disagree with that statement. 

While it’s incumbent on the firm to have a social media policy and training that describes what’s appropriate and falls under the firm’s moral code of ethics, Legal Marketing Association national social and digital media co-chairwoman Jennifer Simpson Carr advised that if it gives you an ounce of doubt, don’t post it.

“If there’s that hesitation, there’s something alerting you to the fact that it may not be viewed or received in the best light,” Carr said.