Research
Documented cases, official policies, and bar prep industry guidance confirm that character and fitness committees review applicants’ online presence.
Law students are often told to clean up their social media before bar applications, but many assume it’s just precautionary advice. The reality: multiple jurisdictions have formal or informal policies to review online presence, and documented cases show social media has been cited in admissions decisions.
No applicant has ever been denied admission to the bar solely for constitutionally protected speech. The First Amendment applies to character and fitness evaluations, and courts are careful. Decisions upheld on review almost always rest on conduct other than speech.
UC Berkeley Law dean Erwin Chemerinsky surveyed the case law for the NCBE’s own publication in 2025 and put it this way: “applicants’ speech, including on social media, might be very relevant to the [character and fitness] evaluations. But…licensure determinations are best focused on matters other than applicants’ speech as the basis for their decisions.”
Relevant, but not dispositive. Your online record isn’t going to sink you on its own. But when C&F review starts asking questions, what examiners find online shapes how they read the rest of the application. A post makes a nondisclosure look worse. A stale LinkedIn makes a candor issue look like a pattern. The cases below are evidence that when examiners start looking, they may look online, and what they find matters.
Source: Erwin Chemerinsky, Bar Admissions and Freedom of Speech, NCBE Bar Examiner (Summer 2025) | thebarexaminer.ncbex.org
“Are social media accounts fair game for character and fitness investigators?”
NCBE Webinar Series, December 9, 2020
In December 2020, the National Conference of Bar Examiners ran a four-part webinar series on character and fitness. One session was dedicated entirely to social media. It featured a state board executive giving “a firsthand account of how a jurisdiction uses social media posts in their investigations and what standards and limitations they have set both for the applicant behavior and their investigators.”
Speakers: Thomas E. Kadri, assistant professor, University of Georgia School of Law; Sophie Martin, Executive Director, New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners; Tiffany Stronghart, NCBE Digital Communications Specialist.
Source: Focus on Character and Fitness Webinar Series, NCBE Bar Examiner, Spring 2021 | thebarexaminer.ncbex.org
In re Gjini | Maryland, 2016
During the character and fitness investigation of Otion Gjini’s bar application, an examiner discovered offensive posts Gjini had made in online chat rooms during law school. The Character Committee Chair, writing separately, concluded the posts were the kind of speech that “would tend to ‘breed disrespect for the courts and for the legal profession’ if associated with an attorney.” The Maryland Court of Appeals ultimately denied admission for a separate reason (failure to disclose a probation violation) and noted its decision was “not, in any way, premised on that commentary.” Even so, the posts were part of the record every level of review weighed: the examiner, the Character Committee, the Board of Law Examiners, and the Court of Appeals.
In re Gjini, Misc. No. 32, Sept. Term 2015 (Md. July 7, 2016).
In re Anonymous Applicant | South Carolina, 2022
An applicant passed the South Carolina bar but had his admission delayed by roughly a year. The court pointed to a “sustained pattern of false and misleading conduct” across his law school and bar applications, capped by his updating LinkedIn to “associate attorney” before he was admitted. The court said holding himself out as an attorney online “raises serious questions about whether Applicant possesses the requisite honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness to practice law.”
In re Anonymous Applicant for Admission to the S.C. Bar, 875 S.E.2d 618, 624 (S.C. 2022); discussed in Erwin Chemerinsky, Bar Admissions and Freedom of Speech, NCBE Bar Examiner (Summer 2025).
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Vasiliades | Maryland, 2021
A Maryland attorney was disbarred in part for offensive posts on social media accounts that also advertised his law firm. The hearing court found he violated Rule 8.4(e) “for authoring and sharing biased and prejudicial language on his public social media accounts which he also used to advertise his legal practice.” The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed and closed with a warning aimed explicitly at future applicants: “it is imperative that bar applicants and attorneys alike remain keenly aware of their ethical obligations relating to social media content” (Chemerinsky, 2025). Vasiliades is a disciplinary case rather than an admission case, but the Court chose to frame its holding as a message to applicants as well.
Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Vasiliades, 257 A.3d 1061, 1074 (Md. 2021).
Florida (2009)
The Florida Board of Bar Examiners adopted a policy to investigate applicants’ social networking accounts on a case-by-case basis. The stated targets: applicants required to establish rehabilitation under Rule 3-13, and applicants with a history of substance abuse or dependence. Florida was the first state to publicly commit to this practice.
Source: Florida Board of Bar Examiners re Consideration of the Final Report of the Character and Fitness Commission, 5 (2009) | floridasupremecourt.org
Pennsylvania
Per the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners’ published overview: “To verify the accuracy of the information on the application, or to obtain additional information, the Board may contact an applicant’s employers, colleges and law schools, courts, medical providers, police agencies, credit agencies, and other sources.” The phrase “other sources” gives the Board broad investigative latitude.
Source: Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners, Character and Fitness Overview (pabarexam.org).
Most states have not published formal social media policies. Absence of a published policy does not mean social media is not reviewed.
Barbri, currently tells applicants directly:
“In this digital age, your social media presence is an extension of your character. Before and during the application process, review your online profiles. Remove any content that could be perceived as unprofessional or raise questions about your judgment, integrity, or fitness to join the legal community.”
Source: BARBRI, A Guide to the Character + Fitness Process for US Bar Admission | barbri.com
65%
of recent law school graduates think it’s appropriate for a state bar to review social media when considering admission
FindLaw, 2019 (nearly 80% say the same for employers)
Law students aren’t surprised that bars look. They expect it. The question isn’t whether bars check. It’s whether you’ve seen what they’ll see.
Source: George Khoury, Social Media and the Moral Character Requirement, FindLaw (Mar. 21, 2019).
Character and fitness committees review social media. NCBE has dedicated a public webinar to it. Florida has a formal policy. Pennsylvania’s board can contact “other sources” to verify applications. Published cases in Maryland and South Carolina show social media content cited in admissions and disciplinary decisions, and in Vasiliades the Maryland Court of Appeals directed its warning explicitly at “bar applicants and attorneys alike.” Major bar prep companies now include C&F guidance that tells applicants to review and clean their online presence.
Social media alone is rarely the basis for a denial. But when it surfaces alongside other concerns, like a nondisclosure or a candor issue, it shifts how examiners read the whole application.
Well-resourced applicants already pay thousands of dollars to C&F consultants and PR firms to audit and clean their footprint before a bar review. Good Presence’s Wipe scan for law students gives you that same opportunity to control your online presence at a price that’s closer to a bar prep textbook ($99 one-time).
Run the same scan they will run, before they do.
Start Your Scan $99Comprehensive scan of 100+ sources. Results in minutes. Completely private and confidential.
← Back to Law Students overview