By Tunde Ahmed Adejumo
There is this current trend among some lawyers to treat legal representation as a form of public theatre, using social media as a stage to grandstand, attract attention, and project an image of fearless advocacy, often at the expense of sound legal judgment and the client’s best interest.
Unfortunately, social media platforms have created an environment where cases are narrated as running dramas, every procedural filing is broadcast as a “major victory,” and every court appearance is framed as a public showdown. Letters that should be addressed confidentially to opposing counsel or the court are sometimes deliberately crafted with provocative language intended for eventual public consumption. Television appearances, radio interviews, and livestreamed commentaries on ongoing matters have become tools for cultivating a personal brand rather than advancing the client’s position. This approach is seductive because it offers instant visibility and a sense of personal branding, but in practice, it often turns legal disputes into entrenched battles where compromise becomes impractical, political or emotionally impossible for the parties involved.
The danger with this performance-driven style of advocacy is that it shifts the focus from genuine dispute resolution to public spectacle, often working against the client’s best interests. When a lawyer’s priority becomes “winning” in the court of public opinion, positions tend to harden, opposing parties may respond with equal hostility, and the room for quiet, constructive settlement shrinks considerably. Decision-makers, who value professionalism and substance over theatrics, may also form unfavourable impressions that subtly influence the outcome. In the end, it is the client, not the lawyer who suffers the consequences, which can include a longer and more complicated legal process, higher costs, unnecessary strain on personal or business relationships, and a lingering reputational impact that may outlast the dispute itself.
In my humble view, the primary function of a lawyer is to resolve disputes efficiently and in a manner that serves the client’s long-term interests. This involves identifying and narrowing the real issues in contention, managing the conflict to prevent unnecessary escalation, and pursuing outcomes that are legally sound, practical, and sustainable. In practice, this often requires considering private negotiation, mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution methods before resorting to litigation; providing clients with objective, realistic advice rather than encouraging positions that may prolong or complicate the matter; and safeguarding confidentiality to protect both legal and reputational considerations. It also calls for avoiding the use of legal proceedings as platforms for personal promotion, recognising that professional credibility remains one of a lawyer’s most valuable assets in achieving favourable results.
The discipline of quiet lawyering does not mean passivity or a lack of zeal; in fact, the best lawyers often pair an almost fanatical commitment to their client’s cause with a measured, professional approach that keeps the focus on resolution rather than noise. One can be relentless in preparation, unyielding in advocacy, and fiercely protective of a client’s interests while still operating with discretion. Quiet professionalism is not weakness, it is the practice of being deliberate, strategic, and consistent in all dealings. It means keeping attention on the case itself, avoiding inflammatory public statements that could be used against the client, and using the lawyer’s voice to cool tempers rather than inflame them. Social media can still play a role in a modern lawyer’s toolkit, but only when used responsibly to educate, to clarify legal principles, and to promote respect for the law, rather than as a megaphone for personal showmanship.
In an era where visibility can be mistaken for value, lawyers face the temptation to play to the crowd rather than work for the quiet win. But when the performance becomes the point, the client’s matter sadly becomes collateral damage, dragged into a contest that is less about resolution and more about reputation.
The greats in this profession will tell you that the most effective advocacy is often the least visible. It is carried out in private negotiations, not comment sections. It is found in measured letters, not viral posts. It is limited to the courtroom and not on a TV talk show. A lawyer who seeks to be remembered for the noise they made may get their wish, but a lawyer who seeks to be remembered for the problems they solved will leave a legacy that outlasts any trending headline. You can be the lawyer who makes headlines, or the one who makes a difference, but rarely both.
