MoJ refuses to name paid influencers used in government campaigns

The Ministry of Justice has confirmed it pays social-media influencers and content creators to promote government campaigns but is refusing to identify them, citing commercial confidentiality.

In a written answer to shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy, justice minister Jake Richards said the department uses paid influencers "on occasion and in line with government communications service best practice" to reach audiences less likely to engage with traditional channels. The approach, he said, can be "more effective and cost-efficient" than conventional advertising, particularly for frontline recruitment drives.

Why the MoJ will not name names

Mr Timothy asked which influencers and content creators the department had paid. Mr Richards declined, arguing that disclosure "would be likely to prejudice its commercial interests".

The department's reasoning is that revealing identities would weaken its negotiating position in future campaigns. If suppliers know they have been named publicly, the MoJ says, it becomes harder to secure pro bono or reduced-cost support and to achieve "value for money for the taxpayer".

Arrangements, Mr Richards added, vary "depending on campaign objectives, audience, content requirements and commercial terms".

What this means for legal services marketing

The disclosure is a reminder that influencer marketing is no longer confined to consumer brands. Government departments — and, by extension, the legal services sector — are increasingly willing to use creators who have built trust with specific communities, even when those audiences are harder to reach through traditional media.

For law firms and legal suppliers, the trend raises practical questions. Influencer partnerships can extend reach, particularly for public legal education, recruitment and access-to-justice campaigns. They also carry reputational risk: unlike regulated legal advertising, creator-led content sits outside the Solicitors Regulation Authority's rules, even when it is paid for by a public body.

Transparency vs. negotiation tactics

The refusal to publish names has drawn criticism from transparency campaigners and opposition MPs. The argument that openness would damage future negotiations is common in procurement, but it sits awkwardly alongside the principle that taxpayers should be able to see who is being paid to shape public messaging.

There is also a broader governance point. If the identities of paid creators are hidden, it becomes harder to scrutinise whether the content is clearly labelled as advertising, whether audiences are being targeted appropriately, and whether the spend represents genuine value.

The line between public communication and paid promotion

The MoJ's response does not specify which campaigns used paid influencers, how much was spent, or whether any of the content related to justice policy. Recruitment campaigns are the example given, but the wording leaves room for wider use.

For the legal sector, the episode underlines that influencer and creator-led marketing is becoming part of the communications toolkit at every level. Law firms experimenting with similar tactics will need to weigh reach against disclosure, regulation and the risk of being seen as opaque.