Broadsheet bashing
A former Magic Circle lawyer who has built a sizeable social media following through workday vlogs has hit out at a Financial Times article scrutinising the “office influencer” trend, describing the piece as “dripping in misogyny”.
Published over the weekend, the article (£) examines how this content can glamorise aspects of working life many employees typically complain about, and whether it reflects empowerment and renewed enthusiasm for office culture or simply a polished form of corporate conformity.
The article also discusses the women behind the videos, describing them as “united by youth, glossy looks and perfect hair”, speculating that they “seem quite lonely” and referring to them as “forever single, working mannequins”. It also suggests that “putting on high heels and climbing escalators might be the height of aspiration” for younger workers.
While no influencers are named, Liberty Miles believes at least part of the article refers to her. After completing her training contract at Freshfields and later moving to Jones Day, Miles left BigLaw for a role in legal tech. The article describes a woman working in legal tech in Canary Wharf who shares her day through time-stamped clips, a format Miles regularly uses on Instagram and TikTok, where she has more than 70,000 followers combined.
In a recent post responding to the article, Miles said it portrayed successful women as lonely and lacking romantic or social fulfilment. She accused the FT of reviving the “age-old trope of the cold, ambitious woman”, suggesting that women who succeed professionally must have done so at the expense of their personal lives.
The lawfluencer contrasted this with the way she believes male counterparts are typically portrayed, arguing that they would be seen as successful and desirable, while the women in the piece were labelled “forever single working mannequins”.
Elsewhere in the clip, which has attracted thousands of likes and supportive comments, Miles says the article is “dripping in misogyny”, noting that it was written by another successful woman. She adds that she had hoped society was “past this sort of reductive, patronising characterisation of women”, which suggests they can be successful or fulfilled, “but apparently not both”.
In my view, influencers – whether male or female – generally are very lonely and insecure people. Hence why they desperately seek and crave the attention and validation of their followers on social media.
One could argue that these comment sections are also a way of seeking validation – ha!
Can’t we just agree that all influencers are terrible, no matter their sex or profession?
Lawfluencers are annoying though and more intent on acting the part than being the part (male and female). Many drop out of legal practice entirely. Maybe better suited to a role as an extra in a season 10 revival of Suits.
I don’t need to view the content to guess that it’s likely vacuous shite that tries to sugarcoat the job.
That said, some of the personal comments around appearance and being single seem unnecessary, particularly when there’s usually a wealth of things to criticise about the content itself with ‘lawfluencers’
Lawfluencers are yet more proof that many jobs are glorified daycare
They all drop out of the job after ten minutes. Everything they produce is a complete charade.
Lawfluencers are just creative people who realise early in their legal career that law isn’t for them so they try and make it bearable by creating content that is lapped up by impressionable teenagers and others like them but is nauseating to those with an actual legal career.
They all end up quitting and end up in a nondescript job – ‘tech’, ‘product’, ‘engagement’ etc.
I think you’ll find she’s a Legal Engineer… oh sorry, that was your point.
Who says lawyers are not creative? That is the job: problem solving before, during and after issues arise. Try persuading boardrooms and court rooms without this. When I left private practice after 7 years in banking, others left the law. They are now scientists, actors, traders, screen writers, film producers, professors and yes, investors and entrepreneurs. We did not have lawfluencers.
If only such content existed when I was contemplating law.
I wonder what I’d be doing now.
I find these ‘legal’ influencers (in fact any influencers) painful. I suppose, having practiced for many years, legal influencers are especially frustrating to watch – I am shocked at how they often label themselves as lawyers, yet have barely been practicing for 5 mins, if at all, and then have the time (presumably during the billable day) to stop everything and set up a tripod and film themselves at various angles typing away.
Perhaps they are simply mashing the keypad/perhaps they are actually doing work, who knows?! The formula usually follows… head into the city, set up (oh and you get the joy of watching them open a laptop and plug a charger in), then the various cuts of typing (promise I’m working boss) then off to get matcha and then lunch, little bit more non descript work, then third space and then home. Each section of the rinse repeat process involves various other cuts of each section of the truly boring NPC existence.
The reality is that the clips represent little of what working within the law involves. Face facts, its all for the followers and self-serving reasons and you are ultimately making a fool of yourselves in the process.
Please tell me with a straight face you wont look back in 10-15 years time (if you are still in the profession and have knuckled down and actually done some work and learnt your craft as opposed to filming yourself all day) and make partner and not cringe at the trash you put out in yesteryear!
In the meantime folks, block / remove is your best friend if you have the misfortune to run into this type of ‘content’ – and to the legal ‘influencers’ your passion isn’t for the law, its simply something else. Make it make sense.
Wrong of her to focus on gender.
I mean, she can say what she wants, but the article is literally spot on.
One of the most offputting things is that they nearly all say they work in “big law”, which is a horrible Americanism