You handled a shareholder dispute last month that taught you something every founder in your region should hear. You can't write a word of it. So you post nothing, or you post that your firm moved offices.
That's the dilemma behind most law firm thought leadership in Belgium and the Netherlands. The best material sits in client files, and a prospective client who got your name from an accountant will often look you up on LinkedIn before they pick up the phone. They find a quiet profile, or a feed of firm news.
The good news is that most of what a firm can post isn't a confidentiality problem at all, and the one category that is has a method you can follow. This post is orientation and not legal advice, so check the current rules with your own bar before you publish anything.
Three kinds of post, one dividing line: consent
Sort every idea into one of three buckets, and let the client's consent decide which bucket it lands in.
1. Already public and not about your client. This covers a ruling that's in the news, a new law or a regulator's decision. Your reading of what it means for a 30-person employer or a family business is the post, and because you aren't using anyone's file there is nothing to ask. You can post it this week.
2. Your own deals and cases, with the client's okay. This covers merger announcements, results, a recap of a case, or a post about a matter that got press coverage. It is the bread and butter of a law firm feed, and firms post it all the time. The step that matters is asking the client first, which usually takes a two-line email with what you'd like to post and a draft of the text.
Press coverage or the client's own announcement isn't the same as the client's go-ahead for you to write about the matter, so ask anyway. It takes a minute, and clients tend to appreciate being asked.
The rules say the same thing. Art. 86 of the OVB Codex lets Belgian lawyers mention the nature, scope and result of files in their publicity, but names only if the client "zich hiermee specifiek akkoord verklaart." In the Netherlands, Regel 3 lid 6 says the advocaat "verstrekt geen informatie zonder instemming van de cliënt."
3. Live casework with no client consent. This is where your best insights sit, and here you work from the pattern across your matters instead of from the file itself.
Work from the pattern, not the file
Start by switching the question: instead of asking what happened in this matter, ask what keeps happening across your matters.
A pattern passes one test: could you have written it if this particular client had never walked in? If the post needs one client's facts to make sense, it's a story about a file. If it holds up on what you've seen a dozen times, it's a pattern. A pattern isn't automatically fine either, which is what the check below is for.
There are four good places to look for patterns:
- Recurring client questions. The question you answer in the first ten minutes of an intake call, again and again, is usually a post waiting to be written.
- Mistakes you see at intake. A shareholder agreement signed without a leaver clause is a good example, and you can name the mistake and its cost without saying who made it.
- Changes in rulings or regulation, with your take. That is bucket one again, but now informed by what you see in practice.
- The general shape of a dispute type. You can describe how these disputes usually go, what drives the timeline and where they tend to settle.
Anonymising alone is not enough
Removing the client's name is a good first step, but it isn't the finish line. Sector, size, region and timing together can point at one client, and the client is the person most likely to recognise its own matter. The Dutch rule goes beyond identity: Regel 3 lid 1 asks the advocaat to be silent about "bijzonderheden van door hem behandelde zaken." The Belgian beroepsgeheim in Art. 18 covers "alle vertrouwelijke informatie" and applies "onbeperkt in de tijd."
So what happens when it goes wrong? We found no Belgian or Dutch decision about an anonymised LinkedIn post, but Belgian disciplinary reports are mostly not public, so that tells you little either way. What we did find is a case in which the Raad van Discipline in 's-Hertogenbosch upheld a complaint over an Instagram photo that showed a draft verweerschrift, because the lawyer "bewust het risico in het leven geroepen dat de door haar op internet geplaatste informatie herleidbaar was."
A four-step check
- Abstract to the principle. Write one sentence a reader can take away, with no reference to any matter, and if you can't, you have a story and not a pattern.
- Remove identifying combinations, not only names. Look at sector plus size, place plus time, and any distinctive clause or figure, and ask whether the client or the other side would know it's them.
- Consent, or leave it out. If a detail is what makes the post work, ask the client (that makes it a bucket two post), and if you can't ask, cut the detail.
- One named person reads the final line. Choose that person in advance, and have them read the text exactly as it will be published.
An illustrative rewrite
This example is invented, for illustration only.
Before: "Last month we helped a 40-person Ghent logistics company after a Polish supplier missed three deliveries in a row. The court agreed the penalty clause applied."
That version packs the sector, the size, the city, the counterparty, a distinctive sequence of facts and an outcome into just two sentences.
After: "Supplier contracts often have a penalty clause for late delivery and almost nothing about what counts as notice of delay. The question I get most: when does the clock start? Three things to check before you need them…"
The rewrite starts from a recurring question, so it would still work if no client had ever called. We explain how to shape posts like this in our guide to LinkedIn post formats for lawyers.
The rules in a few lines
Belgium, OVB Codex Deontologie (CCBE-hosted copy; we found no working official link, so check article numbers with your bar)
- Art. 18: the beroepsgeheim covers all confidential information, without time limit.
- Art. 19: confidential information goes to third parties only if relevant, in the client's interest, the client agrees, and it isn't legally prohibited.
- Art. 86: files may feature in publicity without the client's name, unless secrecy or data-protection rules prevent it. Naming needs specific consent.
- Art. 158.2: on a case you're involved in, get the client's consent before commenting publicly.
The OVB's 2018 social-media recommendation, as reported by Jubel, states that "ook op sociale media blijft het beroepsgeheim onverkort gelden."
Netherlands, Gedragsregels advocatuur, Regel 3 (geheimhoudingsplicht, vertrouwelijkheid)
- Lid 1: silence about case particulars, the client's person, and the nature and scope of their interests.
- Lid 3: disclosure only when justified, the client has no objection if asked, and it fits good professional practice.
- Lid 6: weigh the client's interests, and no information without the client's consent.
Build a routine a busy partner can sustain
A method that needs a free afternoon won't survive a busy week, so keep it to three habits:
- Capture a pattern note when a file closes. Two lines are enough: the question that kept coming up, or the mistake you'd see again, with no facts from the file.
- Keep one reviewer, the named person from step four, and agree a fixed moment each week when they read what is going out.
- Publish one post a week. Our consistency research found steady pages earned about six times the impressions per post of bursty ones (general B2B, not legal). If you're short on material, see how to get content input from lawyers who bill by the hour.
Mix the buckets across the month, for example a news reaction early on, a deal post whenever a client says yes, and a pattern post in between. For the wider picture, see social media marketing for law firms and how coaching works for law firms.
If you'd like help keeping up that rhythm, our coaching gives you a coach who knows the law firm world and reviews your drafts, while you keep the final say on what gets published.