A barrister has attacked misogyny in the legal profession after a misconduct case brought against her for calling out a “boys’ club” attitude was thrown out.
Dr Charlotte Proudman, who specialises in family law and is also a women’s rights campaigner, had faced a Bar Standards Board (BSB) disciplinary tribunal over a Twitter thread criticising a ruling in a case she worked on.
In the 14-part thread, posted in April 2022, Proudman said a judgment by Jonathan Cohen had “echoes of the ‘boys’ club’”.
Cohen was a member of the Garrick Club, which was then a men-only club. This year, it voted to end its 193-year ban on female members after the Guardian published a list of about 60 of the club’s most influential members.
Proudman had said she was troubled by Cohen referring in a judgment to the relationship between a woman and her ex-husband as “tempestuous” and describing alleged domestic violence as “reckless”. She suggested the judge had minimised the significance of the domestic abuse her client said she had faced.
On Thursday, partway through the professional conduct tribunal, the five charges against her were dropped.
The charges had alleged that Proudman “failed to act with integrity” in posting the tweets, that they amounted to professional misconduct, were “misleading” and “inaccurately reflected the findings of the judge” in the case.
She was also accused of behaving in a way “which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public placed in her and in the profession” and said to have “knowingly or recklessly misled or attempted to mislead the public” by making the posts.
The tribunal panel chairman, Nicholas Ainley, found Proudman’s tweets were protected under article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights, which protects the right of freedom of expression.
He said her tweets did not “gravely damage” the judiciary, which would “put them outside” of article 10 protection. “We take the view that the judiciary of England and Wales is far more robust than that,” he said.
Reacting on Thursday to the decision to dismiss the case, Proudman said the BSB had proven itself unfit for purpose.
“This case is a turning point for both women’s rights and a barrister’s freedom to speak out against domestic abuse,” she said. “It is a wakeup call: misogyny within the legal profession must be eradicated and the right to challenge harmful systemic attitudes towards domestic abuse must be allowed.
“The BSB has proven itself unfit for purpose. In my view the BSB’s case against me is a clear instance of sex discrimination. While the BSB argued that I do not have the right to criticise a domestic abuse judgment, male barristers are free to call a senior judge an ‘idiot’, ‘stupid’ and should be ‘sacked’.”
Proudman said she had been criticised publicly by male barristers with personal insults and threatening language. “Despite all I have endured, I would be willing to work with the BSB to promote change, but under the current leadership, that is simply not possible,” she said.
“The internal disclosures I have received [have] been nothing short of shocking, revealing a lack of integrity and confidence to regulate [a] profession that deserves better.”
Proudman could have faced a 12-month suspension of her licence or a fine in the misconduct case.
When she discovered earlier this year that Philip Havers, the judge appointed initially to handle her disciplinary proceedings, was also a member of the Garrick, she made a formal request that he recuse himself on the grounds that a “fair-minded and informed observer, having considered these facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias”. After considering her request, Havers withdrew from the case.
Earlier this year, the Guardian revealed that some of Britain’s most powerful judges, including a supreme court judge, four appeal court judges and 11 high court judges, were members of the Garrick in London. The club’s membership also includes about 150 KCs, dozens of serving and retired judges, current and former ministers in the Ministry of Justice, and numerous senior solicitors.
In the US, the federal code of conduct for judges states that they “should not hold membership in any organisation that practises invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin”, and that such membership “gives rise to perceptions that the judge’s partiality is impaired”.
Speaking to media after the hearing, Proudman added: “I’m relieved. Relieved after more than two and a half years of this hell.”
The BSB was approached for comment.
